MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is it worth it to keep images at StockXpert for Thinkstock royalties?  (Read 28736 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 04, 2010, 19:30 »
0
Hi all-

I just got the message about StockXpert closing. Shame. I requested a final payment and planned on just deleting all my images.

My question is: Do you think it will be worth it (when I didn't make much at StockXpert to begin with) to leave my images there and try to get some royalties from Thinkstock? I have many more images there than at Istock, so I'm really not sure it's worth it or not. I feel like it could be ages until another payout from StockXpert via Thinkstock.

Also, why didn't they just have it transferred to Istock instead of StockXpert (obviously for those who are at both sites)?


helix7

« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2010, 19:38 »
0
Seems like it would take more effort to delete your images than to just leave them and see what happens with ThinkStock, no? Why not just sit back and watch what happens? Who knows.. maybe you'll make some decent money with the new site.

« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2010, 19:42 »
0
Well it would probably only take 2 minutes to delete them all from StockXpert, but I do see where you are coming from. Maybe I will give it some time. My only gripe is...say I make only a couple bucks and decide later on to delete them, I might not even be able to get the payout from StockXpert after 2/11. That's why I was thinking it made more sense to have the royalties transfer to Istock instead.

« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2010, 19:52 »
0
I believe the StockXpert site will be staying up for you to access your account and request payments from any sales at Thinkstock. May as well leave your images there in the mean time and see how it goes. I requested a payout from StockXpert too but now I'm thinking I should have waited a while, there may be a buyers stampede from now until the site stops selling!!
« Last Edit: February 04, 2010, 19:55 by Tomboy2290 »

lisafx

« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2010, 19:55 »
0
If you want to be on Thinkstock  it is probably better to do it through Istock since that is where all the operations seem to be moving. 

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2010, 20:01 »
0
None of my pics were showing up on ThinkStock from StockXpert and I've got the same ones on iStock so I just e-mailed them yesterday requesting they close the account and send me my payout and got a response today saying that they will close the account on the 11th so not to lose out on any royalties and then payput will be sent out after that date.

« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2010, 20:13 »
0
I cannot find my images on ThinkStock so I guess I need to be more patient or they will all rejected?

« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2010, 20:20 »
0
@ Melastmohican: I think they are still migrating images, so hang in there, maybe they will show up.

@ Lisafx: See I have this dilemma. A lot of my older images that are on StockXpert are very unlikely to be accepted at Istock. Otherwise, I'd just upload everything at Istock and be on my way. :) I have probably around 30-50 on Thinkstock that came from Istock, but 300 or so from StockXpert.

lisafx

« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2010, 20:25 »
0
A lot of my older images that are on StockXpert are very unlikely to be accepted at Istock. Otherwise, I'd just upload everything at Istock and be on my way. :) I have probably around 30-50 on Thinkstock that came from Istock, but 300 or so from StockXpert.

Oh, yeah, that is an issue.  Sounds like in your case its better leaving them there then.

Istock should really rethink their acceptance strategy for these cheapo sub sites.  If you check the box to have new uploads go directly to partner sites then there should maybe be a less stringent standard.

« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2010, 21:28 »
0
Finally i come back from hollys and what I see.?&'&&&#%
It better for me and you ears to not say what I think of this new camouflaged mafia (yappy) yuppies who finally catch they childish dream and take over Getty public society.
For now it is not fpublic society at all.
If they are so smart in they moves why they dont offer us to compensate our looses of they outburst "miracle" plan. e.g.
We are so stupid but strongest mixed up dog in park.

So why they just dont offer us e.g. (lets take middle earnings from eXpert site per month) and pay us this value every month and they can sell our images from from ours Xpert port for they own price e.g. 100000 per image if they can, may, will or whatever...
We gave them our port and all its clear.
All the same we can upload at eXpert any more. They have our images on they whatever dot crap greedy affiliate site but they must pay us compensation because WE are subscribers and without us YOU will be simple ZERO.

But NO. What they do, does and doing...
Mixing our galeries from one site to another, closed one transfer to another.... blah.
Why are my images from iStock on that fThing stok???
on iStock they are newer checked to be on this kind of Thing Stok and why are they now there???
On iStock I have few of them checked what are in that Thingstok there images what they are not checked on f iStock????
To ask support??!??(%&$??!? and eventualy get silly answer after 2 months IF??!
I will after and "if they fix" ""glitch"" in they sys.
what
And all of this for again screwing us!!! People who are feeding you Greedy mafia plan in you for now non independent public state.
I am not believer but hope that you greedy plan will bang in you nut head.

OK
This above is my little grindig about iStock (as usual) I can say that my sales are up last two months, Maybe really by coincidance to blind chicken buy EL (or may be It is ordinary glich for washing money between them). OK nice someone mix my ID number with some venal gonzo reviewer and money is still on my acc.
THNX


« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2010, 23:59 »
0
Hahaha Suljo!
Take a heart from me, I barely understand your posts but the parts I do, always make me laugh :)

~~~~~~~~~
I am not believer but hope that you greedy plan will bang in you nut head.
~~~~~~~~~

Lol, that was priceless :)

« Reply #11 on: February 05, 2010, 00:32 »
0
I'm not the best and certainly not expensive, but I'm not cheap enough to let my things be on thinkstock for peanuts. I don't like to feel that cheap. It's a question of pride.

I don't want to undercut DT and SS with their generous subs compensation at 0.35$ (level 1) or 0.36$. It doesn't make sense for them to keep these kinds of royalties up if we offer our images - out of short term greed - behind their back at 0.25$ at the first new cheap site that pops up.

Yesterday morning, I deleted my port at SX (800 since 2006) one by one. I looked at the images with 5, 10 and more downloads. They were totally different from other sites: the kind of images that IS never would accept because too artistic, too off-mainstream, too "distorted". I'm probably not the only one with the observation that SX (also by JUI and photos.com) sold totally different things than other sites. That type of niche content is lost forever for Getty.

The SX, photos.com, JUI customers just won't evaporate, and they won't find what they were used to on thinkstock. The lazy part of them will stick with IS and discover a whole new world. The other part will roam around till they find SS or DT or perhaps FT (but it has a weird acceptance policy).

DT and SS have approximately the same content as SX had, just a bit more. They will find themselves at home there. By murdering SX instead of keeping it as B-site next to A-site IS, Getty destroyed assets it payed for.

helix7

« Reply #12 on: February 05, 2010, 00:34 »
0
Well it would probably only take 2 minutes to delete them all from StockXpert, but I do see where you are coming from. Maybe I will give it some time. My only gripe is...say I make only a couple bucks and decide later on to delete them, I might not even be able to get the payout from StockXpert after 2/11. That's why I was thinking it made more sense to have the royalties transfer to Istock instead.

Well now you've got me thinking... Until now I just figured 'Why bother? Just leave things at StockXpert and get on with life.' But I suppose there are some good reasons to delete everything at StockXpert and move it all over to istock. istock is the continuing business entity, while StockXpert is only going to exist to store TS earnings. It would be easier for record-keeping and bookkeeping to condense things under istock rather than keeping StockXpert around just for the sub earnings. If financially it all works out the same, maybe for some people (possibly me included) it might be better to delete the StockXpert account.

I also have stuff on istock that I couldn't get accepted at StockXpert because of their weird requirements with showing source material (StockXpert makes you provide it within the ZIP file for vectors, meaning buyers would then get your source material). I could get those images into the partner program via istock whereas I could not with StockXpert.

Definitely has me thinking...


« Reply #13 on: February 05, 2010, 00:48 »
0
Mixing our galeries from one site to another, closed one transfer to another.... blah.
Getty will have a big headache mixing all the collections on TS. They are totally different as to quality requirements and keywording practices. At the IS forums people already complained that their images with strict CV can't compete with the much more liberal keywording habits at the other sites that fill up TS.
So the TS reviewers will have to check keywords and image quality again, since it was said that the images from SX would be "selected". Take 30 sec per image for that, and 3M images, that's 25K hours, 13 manyears or 312K$. Even if they can find 26 persons able to do that, it will still take half a year to do so.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2010, 00:51 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #14 on: February 05, 2010, 01:06 »
0
I agree with FD, you should not, in my opinion, leave the images on ThinkStock as it is the real low pay per download agency.

Note that FT gives us 0.3, DT 0.35, 123RF 0.36, SS is bit different as the initial is also 0.25, yet for anyone bit serious it goes quickly up to 0.33.

By supporting TS (don't we need an abbrev for the new stock?) in masses, we give the higher paying sub agencies clear message that we don't mind lowering our commissions.

And as for transferring StockXpert content to IS (instead of to TS), I think it was pretty clear from the beginning that this could not happen. It would cut some of the major rules of IS - like the upload limits, larger upload limits for exclusives, supposed higher standards...

nruboc

« Reply #15 on: February 05, 2010, 01:26 »
0
I agree with both the above, would never support the lowest paying subscription site out there

« Reply #16 on: February 05, 2010, 01:32 »
0
By supporting TS (don't we need an abbrev for the new stock?) in masses, we give the higher paying sub agencies clear message that we don't mind lowering our commissions.

Exactly. If there is a lot of grumbling from IS exclusives, it might well be that the 0.25$ on TS goes up for IS exclusives only, according to their canister level. Then IS will, but for the exclusives only, have a SS and FT scheme.
Putting the price as low as the initial level on SS now will give TS a huge profit. So perhaps this is a strategic reserve to please the exclusives later with a canister-based reward. The IS forum will cheer all over praising IS as never before.  :P

« Reply #17 on: February 05, 2010, 01:53 »
0
Aren't there any other sites that have 25 cents commission for subs? I do not believe that SS will feel any pressure to lower prices just because a new site is popping up.

« Reply #18 on: February 05, 2010, 02:17 »
0
Aren't there any other sites that have 25 cents commission for subs? I do not believe that SS will feel any pressure to lower prices just because a new site is popping up.

Yes, there is CanStockPhoto. I believe the CanStockPhoto standard subscription pays 0.25. Fotosearch subscription through CanStockPhoto is 0.3.

« Reply #19 on: February 05, 2010, 04:56 »
0
By supporting TS (don't we need an abbrev for the new stock?) in masses, we give the higher paying sub agencies clear message that we don't mind lowering our commissions.

Exactly. If there is a lot of grumbling from IS exclusives, it might well be that the 0.25$ on TS goes up for IS exclusives only, according to their canister level. Then IS will, but for the exclusives only, have a SS and FT scheme.
Putting the price as low as the initial level on SS now will give TS a huge profit. So perhaps this is a strategic reserve to please the exclusives later with a canister-based reward. The IS forum will cheer all over praising IS as never before.  :P

Payments are alreadu higher at TS for IS exclusives. They go until 0,38 dollars. But even so, most exclusives have put there just old non-selling files.

lisafx

« Reply #20 on: February 05, 2010, 08:14 »
0
Aren't there any other sites that have 25 cents commission for subs? I do not believe that SS will feel any pressure to lower prices just because a new site is popping up.

Yes, there is CanStockPhoto. I believe the CanStockPhoto standard subscription pays 0.25. Fotosearch subscription through CanStockPhoto is 0.3.

The difference at Canstock is that those .25 sales (which are priced too cheap for sure) are offset by frequent $20 credit sales through Fotosearch. 

At Thinkstock there are no credit sales.  It will all be .25 sub sales, so there is nothing else to be gained by being on the site. 

« Reply #21 on: February 05, 2010, 08:24 »
0
Aren't there any other sites that have 25 cents commission for subs? I do not believe that SS will feel any pressure to lower prices just because a new site is popping up.

Yes, there is CanStockPhoto. I believe the CanStockPhoto standard subscription pays 0.25. Fotosearch subscription through CanStockPhoto is 0.3.

The difference at Canstock is that those .25 sales (which are priced too cheap for sure) are offset by frequent $20 credit sales through Fotosearch. 

At Thinkstock there are no credit sales.  It will all be .25 sub sales, so there is nothing else to be gained by being on the site. 

I think there is single credit sale, contributor gets 20 % of price, but that sales will be rarely, because it is subscription site...

lisafx

« Reply #22 on: February 05, 2010, 08:40 »
0


I think there is single credit sale, contributor gets 20 % of price, but that sales will be rarely, because it is subscription site...

Oh, thanks for the correction.  I'm not sure it makes much practical difference, but it's good to be accurate.

« Reply #23 on: February 05, 2010, 09:04 »
0
I wont use thinkstock while they only offer $0.25.  Just imagine how much better that site would be if they paid us something reasonable, like $0.35.  CanStockPhoto have hardly any $0.25 sales, I get nearly as many $20 sales there.  I still wish they went to $0.35 though.

I don't think thinkstock will work but if it does and all we have is low subs sites, I will stop using microstock.  I already have a plan in place to move to RM, footage and selling from my own site.  There is no way I am going to be forced in to low commission subs that earn the sites a lot more than we do.

grp_photo

« Reply #24 on: February 05, 2010, 09:12 »
0
I optioned out for Thinkstock but as they are now advertising thinkstock in the istock contact sheet I'm thinking of option in it is probably a good way to drive buyers away from istock and should be supported by independent photographers.

lisafx

« Reply #25 on: February 05, 2010, 09:13 »
0
I optioned out for Thinkstock but as they are now advertising thinkstock in the istock contact sheet I'm thinking of option in it is probably a good way to drive buyers away from istock and should be supported by independent photographers.

Why would independent contributors want to drive business away from Istock where we average over a dollar a sale to a sub site where we will get only .25 ???

« Reply #26 on: February 05, 2010, 09:28 »
0
I optioned out for Thinkstock but as they are now advertising thinkstock in the istock contact sheet I'm thinking of option in it is probably a good way to drive buyers away from istock and should be supported by independent photographers.
I completely disagree.  SS pay me $0.38, why on earth would they carry on raising commissions if I accept $0.25 from thinkstock?  If most independents opt in, we could end up with $0.25 being the top subs rate on all the sites.  This could also take customers away from the independent sites, please explain how that helps us?

« Reply #27 on: February 05, 2010, 09:34 »
0
I was searching for an old thread from here and I stumbled apon something I said about StockXpert being bought by Getty and sub sales. "In any event, it can't get any worse, can it?" I fear it has.

The full post is here, it's worth a read I think if just to remind us of the damage subs can do.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/stockxpert-com/revenue-plummeting-at-StockXpert/

« Reply #28 on: February 05, 2010, 09:46 »
0
I wont use thinkstock while they only offer $0.25.  Just imagine how much better that site would be if they paid us something reasonable, like $0.35.  CanStockPhoto have hardly any $0.25 sales, I get nearly as many $20 sales there.  I still wish they went to $0.35 though.

I don't think thinkstock will work but if it does and all we have is low subs sites, I will stop using microstock.  I already have a plan in place to move to RM, footage and selling from my own site.  There is no way I am going to be forced in to low commission subs that earn the sites a lot more than we do.

I am not for Thinkstock either. They have absolutely nothing interesting to offer. How do you guys get those $20 sales from CanStockPhoto? Been there three months now and none of those yet and I get lots of ELs elsewhere and good sales from Alamy. Denis  
« Last Edit: February 05, 2010, 09:54 by cybernesco »

grp_photo

« Reply #29 on: February 05, 2010, 12:19 »
0
I optioned out for Thinkstock but as they are now advertising thinkstock in the istock contact sheet I'm thinking of option in it is probably a good way to drive buyers away from istock and should be supported by independent photographers.

Why would independent contributors want to drive business away from Istock where we average over a dollar a sale to a sub site where we will get only .25 ???
Well istock killed one of the best site, my favorite microstocksite, so it's fair enough to make it harder for them.

« Reply #30 on: February 05, 2010, 12:30 »
0
I optioned out for Thinkstock but as they are now advertising thinkstock in the istock contact sheet I'm thinking of option in it is probably a good way to drive buyers away from istock and should be supported by independent photographers.

Why would independent contributors want to drive business away from Istock where we average over a dollar a sale to a sub site where we will get only .25 ???
Well istock killed one of the best site, my favorite microstocksite, so it's fair enough to make it harder for them.

 They are the same company!! Istock, thinkstock, getty.. They are the same, so your not driving anyone away just transfering them to another part of the same company.. and screwing yourself in the process..

lisafx

« Reply #31 on: February 05, 2010, 14:59 »
0

 They are the same company!! Istock, thinkstock, getty.. They are the same, so your not driving anyone away just transfering them to another part of the same company.. and screwing yourself in the process..

^^Exactly!  I should think this was perfectly obvious, but apparently not  ::)

« Reply #32 on: February 05, 2010, 18:48 »
0
Aren't there any other sites that have 25 cents commission for subs? I do not believe that SS will feel any pressure to lower prices just because a new site is popping up.

Yes, there is CanStockPhoto. I believe the CanStockPhoto standard subscription pays 0.25. Fotosearch subscription through CanStockPhoto is 0.3.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2010, 19:00 by UncleGene »

« Reply #33 on: February 06, 2010, 03:34 »
0
The difference at Canstock is that those .25 sales (which are priced too cheap for sure) are offset by frequent $20 credit sales through Fotosearch. 


I wish I could agree with the word "frequent" in that sentence. For me the words "frequent" and "sales" don't sit comfortably in the same sentence as "Canstock", let alone "frequent $20 sales".

But maybe my sort of work isn't popular with Fotosearch users.

« Reply #34 on: February 06, 2010, 04:06 »
0
I'm leaning heavily on removing everything and not participating in the Thinkstock transition. I'm not sure that I personally want to contribute any more than possible to the industries subscription-based trends.

In fact it would be nice if the agencies would come up with some type of opt-out option for sub sales.

Maybe an evolution of all these "free image" sections to "sub image" sections is in order. I would probably never donate images to the sub section just like I don't to the free sections now. However, I'm sure a lot of people still would. This would still allow buyers who work on pathetically cheap budgets to stay in the game .. they just wouldn't be getting access to premium images.

The agencies make more money .. we make more money ... the buyers will all still be there because we are dealing with a need industry and not a want industry ... sounds like a nice idea to me at least.

Xalanx

« Reply #35 on: February 06, 2010, 04:51 »
0
I removed my 3800 photos from StockXpert and asked for a final payout. I'm not going to contribute to thinkstock and compete against myself on SS for example.
I also noticed that Andres Rodriguez has his files on thinkstock, the only one from the big guys I could find there. Yuri is not there.
Neither Sean Locke, if you can imagine  ;D

« Reply #36 on: February 06, 2010, 06:34 »
0
I have about the same number and they will go within a few days (still getting a few StockXpert sales). but $0.25 is too low and I wont support undercutting what I get paid elsewhere.
 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #37 on: February 06, 2010, 09:17 »
0
I think there is single credit sale, contributor gets 20 % of price, but that sales will be rarely, because it is subscription site...

Oh, thanks for the correction.  I'm not sure it makes much practical difference, but it's good to be accurate.

At the moment, there's a one-off price for larger sizes on photos.com, and these are expected to be few in number.
HOwever, on the Thinkstock front page it says:
"Image packs
Don't need a full subscription? Our 5, 25, 100, and 250-shot image packs are perfect for smaller budgets or per-project use. Check back soon for details."
The prices which will be charged were released on a press release, quoted e.g. here:
http://www.photographyblog.com/news/getty_images_introduce_thinkstock/
The relevant sentence reads:
"Additionally, Thinkstock will soon offer multiple-shot image packs, with prices ranging from $59 - $999, ideal for customers with smaller budgets or who require imagery for a specific project."
« Last Edit: February 06, 2010, 09:21 by ShadySue »

lisafx

« Reply #38 on: February 06, 2010, 14:01 »
0
I also noticed that Andres Rodriguez has his files on thinkstock, the only one from the big guys I could find there. Yuri is not there.
Neither Sean Locke, if you can imagine  ;D

Bear in mind a lot of people who were opted out have had their portfolios transferred to Thinkstock by mistake.  I don't know if that was what happened in Andres' case, but I wouldn't assume just because his images are there that he wanted them to be.

Xalanx

« Reply #39 on: February 06, 2010, 14:41 »
0
I also noticed that Andres Rodriguez has his files on thinkstock, the only one from the big guys I could find there. Yuri is not there.
Neither Sean Locke, if you can imagine  ;D

Bear in mind a lot of people who were opted out have had their portfolios transferred to Thinkstock by mistake.  I don't know if that was what happened in Andres' case, but I wouldn't assume just because his images are there that he wanted them to be.

I know. I just make a note that most of the big guys are NOT on thinkstock.

I wonder if Getty really believes that this is a good approach to compete with SS...

helix7

« Reply #40 on: February 06, 2010, 19:09 »
0
I'm leaning heavily on removing everything and not participating in the Thinkstock transition...

That's basically where I've landed. I was going to leave my stuff at StockXpert to transfer to ThinkStock, then realized that it's ridiculous to have 2 ThinkStock portfolios (one of old StockXpert stuff and another of anything new I wanted on ThinkStock via istock). So I figured I'd just delete my StockXpert portfolio and if I wanted to be on Thinkstock I'd do it through istock instead.

Then after giving it some more thought I think I'm just going to sit this one out and see what happens. I'll delete my StockXpert account and if things ever change at ThinkStock (meaning we see a proper pay rate) then I'll just opt in through istock instead.

But for now, I'm keeping my distance from ThinkStock.


« Reply #41 on: February 06, 2010, 22:59 »
0
But for now, I'm keeping my distance from ThinkStock.

Me too. The more I look into this, the less comfortable I am with it. I will not be supporting thinkstock.

« Reply #42 on: February 10, 2010, 14:11 »
0
@ Melastmohican: I think they are still migrating images, so hang in there, maybe they will show up.

@ Lisafx: See I have this dilemma. A lot of my older images that are on StockXpert are very unlikely to be accepted at Istock. Otherwise, I'd just upload everything at Istock and be on my way. :) I have probably around 30-50 on Thinkstock that came from Istock, but 300 or so from StockXpert.



In a similar situation myself ... 400+ at StockXpert and around 40+ or so at iStock. I did hear they are in Phase I of migration with Phase II, and Phase III still yet to come.

-Mark
http://markwpayne.wordpress.com
 

« Reply #43 on: February 10, 2010, 20:18 »
0
Quote

I wonder if Getty really believes that this is a good approach to compete with SS...

Getty isn't inventing the wheel here. They basically took JIU, re-branded it Thinkstock (A great RF brand Jupiter killed) and lowered commissions.

« Reply #44 on: February 12, 2010, 17:07 »
0
I've requested my final payment after having deleted all my files. Today I got a confirmatory message from [email protected], asking me if I am sure that I want to close my account and if I knew that my files could be hosted on Thinkstock.com. Well, seeing as all my files are now gone from StockXpert (and I wouldn't want to have them on TS anyway), I couldn't answer in any other way than 'yes' :)

So long and thanks for all the fish, StockXpert...

« Reply #45 on: February 13, 2010, 10:34 »
0
Maybe cca 200 of my images can appear on Thinkstock... That is difference between my  IS and my StockXpert porfolios..
They won't  duplicate images...

So, that is lower quality images and I want to see how it works there, will be or not single PPD sales...
Then after month or two I will remove these 200 if I am not satisfied...

RacePhoto

« Reply #46 on: February 13, 2010, 23:09 »
0
I optioned out for Thinkstock but as they are now advertising thinkstock in the istock contact sheet I'm thinking of option in it is probably a good way to drive buyers away from istock and should be supported by independent photographers.

Why would independent contributors want to drive business away from Istock where we average over a dollar a sale to a sub site where we will get only .25 ???

Why does anyone have photos on 123RF where they pay .22 for some subscriptions?

« Reply #47 on: February 14, 2010, 02:17 »
0
I optioned out for Thinkstock but as they are now advertising thinkstock in the istock contact sheet I'm thinking of option in it is probably a good way to drive buyers away from istock and should be supported by independent photographers.

Why would independent contributors want to drive business away from Istock where we average over a dollar a sale to a sub site where we will get only .25 ???

Why does anyone have photos on 123RF where they pay .22 for some subscriptions?

I get $0.36 for subs there, can't find any $0.22.

RacePhoto

« Reply #48 on: February 14, 2010, 03:52 »
0
I optioned out for Thinkstock but as they are now advertising thinkstock in the istock contact sheet I'm thinking of option in it is probably a good way to drive buyers away from istock and should be supported by independent photographers.


Why would independent contributors want to drive business away from Istock where we average over a dollar a sale to a sub site where we will get only .25 ???


Why does anyone have photos on 123RF where they pay .22 for some subscriptions?


I get $0.36 for subs there, can't find any $0.22.


Try this link for 20 cent sales. There was another about 22c sales. The answer from 123RF is "it depends on how much they paid for the credits."

http://forum.123rf.com/viewtopic.php?t=1181

Add that and the site taking away sales, disappearing accounting for sales that were made in 2009, the site being broken half the time, slow reviews, slow payment, no answers from support, strange rejections, and it makes me wonder why anyone bothers with them at all. But the point is, 22c and 20c sales, which is 50% of the price paid.

And if someone with a year subscription, pays 27c a photo on ThinkStock then the 25c commission is 92%. That's for people who like to argue commissions based on percentages which makes no sense. We get paid in cents, not Per-cents. :)
 
Then there's the argument that uploading to every new site that comes around, costs nothing, because we already have the photos. And I think that supporting the new price cutting start-ups. causes market weakness, which makes the big agencies have to cut prices to compete with the basement businesses that come and go every two years. The contradiction is that people are supporting all these new sink holes, but vowing that somehow ThinkStock is taking away customers and sales? WHAT?

The OP question was about losing StockXpert and royalties with ThinkStock. The dual standard is, dilution and selling on every wannabee startup (with low views and low sales) is fine, but somehow allowing files to be sold by the same site where they were, with big backing and migrating customers, for 5c less, is a problem.

Yeah, I still don't get it? People are overlooking similar problems and worse situations on multiple sites, but swearing off ThinkStock because they are angry at Getty for shutting down StockXpert. Great deal, put your photos up on "New Site X" for 20c, one time payment, and watch them languish, but gee whiz, it was an easy 20 cents. Yet repeat sales at 25c each, is too low? Site X is taking away sales from the good paying sites and drawing away good customers. ThinkStock is an extension, in house, of the site that people already work for.

Potentially the first 2000 sales on SS are at 25c!

Just too many apparent contradictions and double standards for me to comprehend the wave of complaints against ThinkStock, while other sites offering less and worse conditions, are acceptable?

Yes, I can appreciate the point of view that says no to all subs. It makes sense if that's what someone believes. Moving opted out files to the new site is a major screw up. In fact the whole process and transition has been pretty shabby with vague answers on top of no answers.

What confuses me is how one sub site is significantly different from any other sub site because of one crummy nickel. If I make six sales instead of five, because ThinkStock is bigger and has more customers, I'm making the same amount of money. If they make seven sales where I used to get five, now I got a raise. Why do so many people find that SS is their biggest earning site in dollars? Not because it has the highest return per download, or highest commissions. It's because they sell the most licenses.

Bottom line counts more than all the percentages and earnings formulas. Dollars and cents in the bank account trumps all the RPD, RPI, graphs and BMEs in the deck.

Until I see what happens with StinkySocks as far as the customers and sales, plus earnings in real money, I'm not deciding if this is a big bad deal, or if it is something that works out as good for artists.

StockXpert content hasn't been migrated, we don't know if all the IS files are moved, those mysterious phases aren't completed, we haven't had any indication of sales (or lack of) on ThinkStock yet, and many people have made up their minds that customers are already someplace else and gone forever. It hasn't been a week! StockXpert only shut down a few days back. We just don't know.

« Reply #49 on: February 14, 2010, 06:17 »
0
7 posts in that thread from over a year ago?  Not really relevant now is it?  I can't see anything below $0.36 for the past few months.  Of course they will probably now come under pressure to lower their commissions to $0.25 because people can't resist the temptation of TS.

« Reply #50 on: February 14, 2010, 06:39 »
0
Why do so many people find that SS is their biggest earning site in dollars? Not because it has the highest return per download, or highest commissions. It's because they sell the most licenses.
Aaaahhhh.... I think I'll put it in big red letters too  :P

SS and TS both give 0.25$ to starters, yes. At TS you will be a starter till hell freezes over. At SS, you have a growth path and with a decent port you'll be soon on 0.33$. I'm for a while on 0.36$.

Then, SS has regular ELs at 28$ and frequent ODs, giving an effective RPD of 0.60$ or so.
TS will give a maximum of 0.80$ on image pack sales, so even with 50% IP sales on TS, you'll still have a lower RPD.

Finally, since TS will only be accessible through IS, they'll throw your full sizes to the crocodiles, while at SS, most of us upload reduced sizes.

ap

« Reply #51 on: February 14, 2010, 13:08 »
0
Why do so many people find that SS is their biggest earning site in dollars? Not because it has the highest return per download, or highest commissions. It's because they sell the most licenses.
Aaaahhhh.... I think I'll put it in big red letters too  :P

SS and TS both give 0.25$ to starters, yes. At TS you will be a starter till hell freezes over. At SS, you have a growth path and with a decent port you'll be soon on 0.33$. I'm for a while on 0.36$.

Then, SS has regular ELs at 28$ and frequent ODs, giving an effective RPD of 0.60$ or so.
TS will give a maximum of 0.80$ on image pack sales, so even with 50% IP sales on TS, you'll still have a lower RPD.

Finally, since TS will only be accessible through IS, they'll throw your full sizes to the crocodiles, while at SS, most of us upload reduced sizes.


in my experience, i find ss to be the biggest earner due to the high # of ELs + ODs, rather than the #of licenses sold. I have yet to have an EL at is (i wonder why?). does thinkstock have ELs or ODs? if not, then a pure sub site is just a sub site. it really need a high turnover to make it worthwhile.

also, i've not seen anything lower than .36 for a sub sale or xsmall credit sale at 123. however i've seen $5+ for their extra large tiffs.

i guess people's rancor at ts has a lot to do with taking away the credit sales program in existence at StockXpert, where again i have seen $5+ sales for extra large images.

however, i don't see ts as a bad thing. i use it to dump, er, i mean place my more marginal photos that haven't sold. as an independent, i mix and match all the different agencies to their best use. you get to know what each agency's strengths and weaknesses are and place your portfolio accordingly.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2010, 13:17 by ap »

RacePhoto

« Reply #52 on: February 14, 2010, 14:22 »
0
So true. Keep in mind I'm not saying that people should have a kind and warm feeling about ThinkStock, nor that they should embrace the "25c until Hell Freezes Over" payment program. Just pointing out that there are some contradictions in the logic against this change, and we haven't seen a full week of it's existence.

Hand wringing that StockXpert is gone, that income is lost. No it isn't! The buyers have to either go someplace else or suddenly stop buying photo licenses. Does anyone think that the customers from StockXpert are going out of business because StockXpert shut down? OK they will be buying at some other microstock site, the customers and sales have migrated. Some of that will be to ThinkStock.

Might as well add that we can scream until HFO and nothing is going to change with the photo dumping site. Which I'd call more politely a consolidation of many scattered, withering Getty owned sites. This is a good move for them to get all these orphans into one home. It should bring in buyers and sales.

If it was an option I'd go exclusive on SS. That's how much I like their sales based on volume, occasional .81 and $1.88 ODs and less frequent $28 ELs. IS is still my best Microstock RPD but there are less, so based on the one thing that matters, Bottom Line, Dollars earned, SS is still #1.

SS minimum is 4mp, IS is 2mp, StockXpert was 1mp, anyone want to guess what sizes will be the minimum on ThinkStock? I don't know. Best value for buyers is getting 4mp files from SS. Cheap subs on ThinkStock, what size? Good question? IS exclusives not joining, that's fine because ThinkStock isn't that kind of place. It's a big value priced collection not a modern highest quality stock photo offering.

StockXpert was getting old, with many small files. The fact that they accepted things that others didn't, points to lower acceptance standards, nothing else. Merging the StockXpert collection into one place with some other stale photos, on a single value priced site, makes perfect business sense. Adding the IS collection, especially exclusive content, at subscription prices, to that same site, doesn't make any sense.


Why do so many people find that SS is their biggest earning site in dollars? Not because it has the highest return per download, or highest commissions. It's because they sell the most licenses.
Aaaahhhh.... I think I'll put it in big red letters too  :P

SS and TS both give 0.25$ to starters, yes. At TS you will be a starter till hell freezes over. At SS, you have a growth path and with a decent port you'll be soon on 0.33$. I'm for a while on 0.36$.

Then, SS has regular ELs at 28$ and frequent ODs, giving an effective RPD of 0.60$ or so.
TS will give a maximum of 0.80$ on image pack sales, so even with 50% IP sales on TS, you'll still have a lower RPD.

Finally, since TS will only be accessible through IS, they'll throw your full sizes to the crocodiles, while at SS, most of us upload reduced sizes.


« Reply #53 on: February 14, 2010, 14:41 »
0
Asking hypothetically ...  What if Getty gets it right with ThinkStock and creates a viable competitor to Shutterstock's subscription model?

How bad do things get for contributors?

How good do things get for contributors?


-Mark
http://markwpayne.wordpress.com
 





RacePhoto

« Reply #54 on: February 14, 2010, 15:05 »
0
Asking hypothetically ...  What if Getty gets it right with ThinkStock and creates a viable competitor to Shutterstock's subscription model?

How bad do things get for contributors?

How good do things get for contributors?

-Mark



Wait and see? That's what I've really been trying to say.



« Reply #55 on: February 14, 2010, 15:14 »
0
...Hand wringing that StockXpert is gone, that income is lost. No it isn't! The buyers have to either go someplace else or suddenly stop buying photo licenses...
I want them to go someplace else, it is called shutterstock but any of the other subs sites that pay me much more commission than TS will do :)

« Reply #56 on: February 14, 2010, 15:28 »
0
Asking hypothetically ...  What if Getty gets it right with ThinkStock and creates a viable competitor to Shutterstock's subscription model?

How bad do things get for contributors?

How good do things get for contributors?

-Mark



Wait and see? That's what I've really been trying to say.





Actually, I think that is a bad choice in this case.  If you wait and see - i.e. leave your images on StockXpert to be sold on ThinkStock - you are helping them to succeed with this lower commission rate.   You would be competing with your own images wherever they are (SS, FT, BigStock, etc.) at lower prices.  Sounds like cutting your own throat to me.

Will be cashing out and deleting my port from StockXpert soon I think.
fred

« Reply #57 on: February 15, 2010, 17:35 »
0

Wait and see? That's what I've really been trying to say.





The heck with photography... let's talk about this fantastic smiley face beer toasting icon... 
now that's superb, sir!! LOL  8)=tom

btw...  I left my pix on StockXpert and didn't crash out because I was told my stuff was being migrated over.  As of today, they still aren't there as is none of my junk from IS.   go figure...

RacePhoto

« Reply #58 on: February 15, 2010, 21:56 »
0
Leaf needs to get my collection and add them.




Wait and see? That's what I've really been trying to say.





The heck with photography... let's talk about this fantastic smiley face beer toasting icon... 
now that's superb, sir!! LOL  8)=tom

btw...  I left my pix on StockXpert and didn't crash out because I was told my stuff was being migrated over.  As of today, they still aren't there as is none of my junk from IS.   go figure...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
38 Replies
13345 Views
Last post November 10, 2010, 04:26
by RacePhoto
16 Replies
9388 Views
Last post December 06, 2011, 01:55
by lagereek
21 Replies
6771 Views
Last post February 18, 2012, 12:37
by cathyslife
118 Replies
39207 Views
Last post September 25, 2015, 03:41
by Deyan Georgiev Photography
8 Replies
1435 Views
Last post March 03, 2020, 12:07
by brianholm

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle