MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Sites that no longer exist => StockXpert.com => Topic started by: PeterChigmaroff on June 15, 2009, 11:47
-
Just saw this on SX. Not 15 minutes ago I opted out of the deal on IS because I thought it would be stupid to have the same images going to Photos.com and JIUnlimited . Back to the drawing board.
As we phase out Stockxpert images on Photos.com and JIUnlimited, the plan is to introduce images to Photos.com and JIUnlimited from the iStockphoto collection.
-
Here's the link to the full announcement:
http://www.stockxpert.com/forum/show_messages/25161 (http://www.stockxpert.com/forum/show_messages/25161)
-
Yep __ just had the message myself. I hate to sound cynical but of course this means that they'll be saving themselves 5c for every download of an independent contributor's portfolio. Not only that but, because of the IS CV, I'd imagine that a lot fewer images will actually appear in search results for a subscriber to choose from. I'm opted out of both schemes anyway.
-
Seems like a logical move - motivated by pure greed.
I was opted in via StockXpert, I am opted out via Istock (and will stay out).
-
Disappointing news, but not surprising. I don't envision myself opting in to this through istock.
Maybe if they weren't trying to lowball us.
-
Why not opt-in on IS after this!?
Can somebody explain...
-
I was opted in at StockXpert but I still won't opt into IS's deal!
-
Why not opt-in on IS after this!?
Can somebody explain...
Because it is .05 less per DL than they were paying for the same images through StockXpert.
What's not to understand...?
-
It's a classic Good News/Bad News joke. The bad news is that thanks to their ridiculous upload limits I'm thousands of images behind on iStock vs. StockXpert. The good news is that iStock's subscription pricing sucks, so even if I opt in, that backlog will only apply to my older images. Think I'll take my time about opting in.
-
Why not opt-in on IS after this!?
Can somebody explain...
Their subscription pay out will be the lowest in the industry coming from the most powerful company in the industry. This will become a larger problem if most contributors opt into that deal because the competitor sites will take notice and most likely lower their payouts. Losing situation for the contributors.
-
okay so it sounds like opting out was the right thing to do, thanks.
-
50% of my sales come through Photos.com and JIUnlimited. I guess SX is on the way out.
-
Does each download from Photos.com or JI count as one download on iStock? Might be worth it temporarily if your close to a new cannister level?
Can you opt out once you've opted in?
-
Why not opt-in on IS after this!?
Can somebody explain...
Because it is .05 less per DL than they were paying for the same images through StockXpert.
What's not to understand...?
This is our 5 cents... :P
I think so!
I am staying out...
-
Does each download from Photos.com or JI count as one download on iStock? Might be worth it temporarily if your close to a new cannister level?
Can you opt out once you've opted in?
No, it does not go towards your canister.
-
I am confused. Will my stockxpert images and income be added to my istock account? will I have 2 accounts on istock? Should I purge images I have here and at I stock so they don't appear in the collection twice?
-
Here's the link to the full announcement:
[url]http://www.stockxpert.com/forum/show_messages/25161[/url] ([url]http://www.stockxpert.com/forum/show_messages/25161[/url])
Not a member, so I can't see it. Can you post it here?
-
...Will my stockxpert images and income be added to my istock account? will I have 2 accounts on istock? Should I purge images I have here and at I stock so they don't appear in the collection twice?
As I understand it, it works like this: your StockXpert pictures stay on StockXpert but will be "phased out" on JUI and PC within 90 days, your IS pictures stay on IS and you can choose to transfer them to JUI and PC on a per photo base - they will be available by August (which sound a lot like 90 days to me). So, no, nothing will be duplicated, you won't have two accounts on IS, and Getty gets to save 5 cents on each sale you make via IS/JUI/PC - thanks a lot, guys >:(
Best regards,
Herbert - who is to angry to think clearly right now...
-
Not a member, so I can't see it. Can you post it here?
Not much to see;
We understand that you have been waiting for news regarding any changes to your Stockxpert account given the recent acquisition by GettyImages, and we would like to thank you for your patience. Our goal is to keep you all informed about changes and opportunities with plenty of notice in order to minimize the interruption of services for you and our customers.
In the upcoming weeks, there will be changes at Stockxpert.com for contributors who have 'Opted In' for licensing to our Photos.com and JIUnlimited subscription program. This licensing program will be cancelled, and uploads of Stockxpert images to Photos.com and JIUnlimited.com will be discontinued. You will continue to receive your Photos.com and JIUnlimited subscription earnings until this change has been fully implemented. We expect this process to be complete in about 90 days.
As we phase out Stockxpert images on Photos.com and JIUnlimited, the plan is to introduce images to Photos.com and JIUnlimited from the iStockphoto collection.
As you may already know, iStockphoto is the industry leader in microstock. If you are not yet a contributor to iStockphoto, we would encourage you to apply, and start building your iStockphoto collection. It is a great opportunity for you to increase your earnings and visibility, while engaging in one of the world.s largest and most dynamic creative communities. iStockphoto provides a wealth of information and ideas for you to grow from.
To learn more about contributing to iStockphoto, go to: http://www.istockphoto.com/sell-stock-ph (http://www.istockphoto.com/sell-stock-ph) ...
Once again, we want to thank you for your continued support, and we will provide you with updates as they become available.
Best Regards,
The Stockxpert Team
[email protected]
-
Disappointing news, but not surprising. I don't envision myself opting in to this through istock.
Maybe if they weren't trying to lowball us.
That makes two of us Lisa!...I wonder what's going to happen to the money we have already accumulated on StockXpert, if in 90 days they also decide to shut it down? >:(
-
To learn more about contributing to iStockphoto, go to: http://www.istockphoto.com/sell-stock-ph (http://www.istockphoto.com/sell-stock-ph) ...
It sure doesn't sound good when the little guy says "hey, why don't you go play with the big guy"
Too bad.
-
Sounds a lot to me like the StockXpert "team" will shortly be new hires on the IS team.
-
FYI... if you are considering going exclusive with iStock, you must delete your StockXpert files as well, so this tells me that StockXpert will become absorbed also?
-
I'm sure this must have been in the planning all along, but still I wonder if IS was surprized by how many opted out of this deal all together. Maybe in the end they didn't have anything to offer JIU/P.com so now they are putting the screws to us at StockXpert.
Whatever, I remain opted out.
-
So this acquisition was basically eliminating a competition. They just took only distributing channels while they were not interested in another microsite.
-
Well,
That are really BAD NEWS... I think if they kill stockxpert they will work in favour of their competition better!
Here are my thoughts: Phasing out StockXpert images from JUI/Photos.com will mean that after 90 days they will give us new contributor agreement and they will offer us same as to iStockphoto authors... IF StockXpert STAYS ALIVE for that 90 days.
So, I think I will OPT-OUT this one with Getty and stay with Fotosearch and Corbis... Well... It is not exactly all about money! There is something called screw up and I don't want to be screwed from Getty and iStock!
IF and ONLY IF all my portfolio images will be transferred to my iStockphoto portfolio I will think about to stay with Getty after this screw up!
So, King is Dead - Long Live the King!
-
So this acquisition was basically eliminating a competition. They just took only distributing channels while they were not interested in another microsite.
Yep, this is probably the death kiss for StockXpert.
-
That reads like they want to shut down StockXpert.
-
That reads like they want to shut down StockXpert.
I hope so, StockXpert is a joke
A little reminder
(http://t9x96g.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pZ6j5Y_yNvO6J0SbPp5NNCGIhzrsWJBFeWw4sS6zXeCOu8KIDYdsXxdkY8mfCFrxu85f3tiCN_V5rPfEBFTdxrw/titanic.jpg)
-
That reads like they want to shut down StockXpert.
That's the way I read it too.
-
It would be interesting to know if customers receive similar letter inviting them to IS :-)
-
It would be interesting to know if customers receive similar letter inviting them to IS :-)
YUP!
LOL!
;D
-
It will be really interesting if there exists any SX contributers that have never tried to upload at IS. Go from very easy to frustratingly difficult. Add the upload limits and you are extremely hamstrung.
I don't know it's the end of XSP, but it's certainly the end of my income from Photos.com and Jupiter unlimited. This had doubled my SX income and put them in the middle of the pack. IS income fluctuates with the sorting algorithm. SX income has beat IS in 6 of the last 7 months.
-
So this acquisition was basically eliminating a competition. They just took only distributing channels while they were not interested in another microsite.
Yep, this is probably the death kiss for StockXpert.
+1; 50% of my meager StockXpert earnings were from JUI and Photos. Now, really... what's going to happen? Some (like me, probably), will slow down or stop uploading to StockXpert, StockXpert will be making less revenue, will eventually tank. Boohoo. I like StockXpert a lot better than IS, by the way ... IS is an earner, but, boy... quite unfair on so many levels.
-
That reads like they want to shut down StockXpert.
And the reason for that is more than clear:
Considering my files (8,2 MP out of a Canon 30D): What sells as an XL at StockXpert for 10 Credits (which is a price for the customer from 8$ to 10$ depending on size of the credit pack) sells as L on Istock for 12 Credits (which is between 11,40$ and 18$ if I am not mistaken).
Now taking into account the different commissions:
StockXpert pays 50 cents per credit (they actually pay more than 50% for the larger credit packages), Istock pays 20% of money spent.
For Getty: What used to give them between 3$ and 5$ now gives them between 9,12$ and 14,4$.
For me: What used to bring me 5$ is now down to 2,28$ to 3,6$.
Now more questions. I really do hope that Corbis (Veer Marketplace) will be successful as competition to Getty.
-
That reads like they want to shut down StockXpert.
And the reason for that is more than clear:
Considering my files (8,2 MP out of a Canon 30D): What sells as an XL at StockXpert for 10 Credits (which is a price for the customer from 8$ to 10$ depending on size of the credit pack) sells as L on Istock for 12 Credits (which is between 11,40$ and 18$ if I am not mistaken).
Now taking into account the different commissions:
StockXpert pays 50 cents per credit (they actually pay more than 50% for the larger credit packages), Istock pays 20% of money spent.
For Getty: What used to give them between 3$ and 5$ now gives them between 9,12$ and 14,4$.
For me: What used to bring me 5$ is now down to 2,28$ to 3,6$.
Now more questions. I really do hope that Corbis (Veer Marketplace) will be successful as competition to Getty.
+1
:'(
-
Corbis should have bought Dreamstime instead of wasting money on SnapVillage. Now they are years behind Getty. The only threat to this empire is Shutterstock. Who is going to snap them?
-
Disappointing news, but not surprising. I don't envision myself opting in to this through istock.
Maybe if they weren't trying to lowball us.
That makes two of us Lisa!...I wonder what's going to happen to the money we have already accumulated on StockXpert, if in 90 days they also decide to shut it down? >:(
M@M said "what's going to happen to the money we have already accumulated on StockXpert?"
My thoughts exactly.
Incidentally, then SV moved to Veer, they paid me what I had accumulated even if it was just a few dollars and did not reach payout point.
Let's see if Getty is as honourable as Corbis in this sense.
-
Corbis should have bought Dreamstime instead of wasting money on SnapVillage. Now they are years behind Getty. The only threat to this empire is Shutterstock. Who is going to snap them?
Well, I think Veer Marketplace will be new bay for 'not needed' on iStock - so, we'll catch up on them!
Just to get Mr Holmes on Veer Marketplace to send his 20.000+ illustrations and Corbis will win ;-)
-
I don't know.... Istock has its exclusive content, but they don't have all of the "inferior" stuff that every other site has - so don't they need StockXpert or they aren't competing with the entire market. Unless of course they permit the photos that don't pass IS inspection to go into the subs pool anyway. But by restricting uploads to 15 per week, they aren't exactly competition for Shutterstock with "fresh".
-
I don't know.... Istock has its exclusive content, but they don't have all of the "inferior" stuff that every other site has - so don't they need StockXpert or they aren't competing with the entire market. Unless of course they permit the photos that don't pass IS inspection to go into the subs pool anyway. But by restricting uploads to 15 per week, they aren't exactly competition for Shutterstock with "fresh".
maybe they will keep StockXpert, I am just afraid they will not keep the 50% commission....
-
One other point that has not been mentioned: What do they tell their (photos.com and JIUnlimited) customers?
Right now they will have a majority of the independent content.
If they stop the distribution via StockXpert that will be gone and be replaced with what?
The "unsold files" of Istock? Whatever will be opted in there...
I would expect a majority of Istock exclusives not opting in anything and probably most independents the same.
So what's left to distribute via photos.com and JIU will be significantly less than today.
Does this help to sell more subscriptions?
What else do they plan for the future?
-
I wonder if the next announcement will say StockXpert will be shut down? I will be greatly disappointed. ???
PS: I'm opted out. so this news per se doesn't affect me.
-
I wonder if the next announcement will say StockXpert will be shut down?
Either that or "sorry, but we must comply with the Getty standard commission of 20% bla bla bla, but it will be so great for you all, Whoo Yay !!!"
-
Don't say I didn't warn you: http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/update-about-subs-(istock-vs-photos-com)/msg99109/#msg99109 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/update-about-subs-(istock-vs-photos-com)/msg99109/#msg99109)
-
Apply to istock? 7th time? NO WAY!
20% commission? NO WAY!
Getty on this way? NO WAY!
-
Well, there you go. I figured something like this was going to happen. And I also believed this was a buy to eliminate competition, just like Getty buying istock was. Except istock was the biggest and best, so they're keeping it. I believe they will keep going with the buyouts, until there isn't any viable competition.
I was opted out at istock, will remain opted out at istock. I also uploaded to Veer...hopefully I will be accepted and that place will make money.
-
lets see,
the main reasoning given for istock to photos.com was to improve the quality of offering on photos.com. So having entire the portfolios of Yuri, Andres, matka, iofoto etc etc isn't a good enough image base for photos.com so they will delete them and fill the site with the images that haven't sold on istock in 18 months? somehow this will improve the quality of photos.com
am I missing something here?
otherwise I predict before June 30 next year there will be a very major announcement and change towards photos.com as someone realises that they it still just aint working... :)
-
I wonder if the next announcement will say StockXpert will be shut down? I will be greatly disappointed. ???
PS: I'm opted out. so this news per se doesn't affect me.
I would expect that they have been given the show profitably and show that your not encroaching too much on istocks market (where they make more). With the statement to start moving over to istock I think that within 12 months it will gone (I hope not). I also wouldn't be surprised if we see in the meantime a restructure of commissions like on FT, there would be people who would be saying that the commission is just too high for a getty company.
-
I really had faith in this site, but after JUI got involved, the writing was on the wall, it should have remained independent if it was truly looking out for the best deal for contributors (I think I was naive to believe that day 1)
v.disappointed..
-
Nobody creates stock site for contributors. Even they say so, it's just marketing. All they want are sales. If they could sell randomly generated computer images contributors would be gone is 5 seconds :-)
-
I really felt the guy that started it (I don't want to mention names but you know..) was sincere in the 50% to contributors, if I remember correctly there was a big speech about how we put in just as much work as the agent does, so 50/50 was only fair.. well now he only has 10% of StockXpert, so presumably Getty can change that % commission to whatever they want to, or just buy his 10% and close down the site.. perhaps they can close the site without his 10%, I don't really know how that works.. but I think at this point no-body is working behind the scenes to get us a good deal, and I felt that was the case before.. now I picture those same people I thought were on our side traveling the world, drinking pina colada's, sleeping on a mattress of money and having a grand old time ;)
-
I really felt the guy that started it (I don't want to mention names but you know..) was sincere in the 50% to contributors, if I remember correctly there was a big speech about how we put in just as much work as the agent does, so 50/50 was only fair.. well now he only has 10% of StockXpert, so presumably Getty can change that % commission to whatever they want to, or just buy his 10% and close down the site.. perhaps they can close the site without his 10%, I don't really know how that works.. but I think at this point no-body is working behind the scenes to get us a good deal, and I felt that was the case before.. now I picture those same people I thought were on our side traveling the world, drinking pina colada's, sleeping on a mattress of money and having a grand old time ;)
I am not sure if the guy who started it is not just so unhappy. He got $$$$ from Getty didn't he?
Secondly, your closing point about "those same people I thought were on our side traveling the world, drinking pina colada's, sleeping on a mattress of money and having a grand old time", is truly scary
and sickening. It is true. They are not going to be paying those who did not reach payout, so they are going to kill Stockxpert and take the money and run.
There should really be a law against that. This really is giving microstock sites a bad name, and now I am wondering who else will be the next site to screw us.
-
1. I was naive
2. I was duped
3. Mike Slonecker was right, possibly about everything (oldies might understand that, but the StockXpert crew will for sure)
-
I really felt the guy that started it (I don't want to mention names but you know..) was sincere in the 50% to contributors, if I remember correctly there was a big speech about how we put in just as much work as the agent does, so 50/50 was only fair.. well now he only has 10% of StockXpert, so presumably Getty can change that % commission to whatever they want to, or just buy his 10% and close down the site.. perhaps they can close the site without his 10%, I don't really know how that works.. but I think at this point no-body is working behind the scenes to get us a good deal, and I felt that was the case before.. now I picture those same people I thought were on our side traveling the world, drinking pina colada's, sleeping on a mattress of money and having a grand old time ;)
I am not sure if the guy who started it is not just so unhappy. He got $$$$ from Getty didn't he?
Secondly, your closing point about "those same people I thought were on our side traveling the world, drinking pina colada's, sleeping on a mattress of money and having a grand old time", is truly scary
and sickening. It is true. They are not going to be paying those who did not reach payout, so they are going to kill Stockxpert and take the money and run.
There should really be a law against that. This really is giving microstock sites a bad name, and now I am wondering who else will be the next site to screw us.
-
How do you know they won't pay? I rhink they will pay all what is due, including quantites that didn't reach the payout point.
-
I really felt the guy that started it (I don't want to mention names but you know..) was sincere in the 50% to contributors, if I remember correctly there was a big speech about how we put in just as much work as the agent does, so 50/50 was only fair.. well now he only has 10% of StockXpert, so presumably Getty can change that % commission to whatever they want to, or just buy his 10% and close down the site.. perhaps they can close the site without his 10%, I don't really know how that works.. but I think at this point no-body is working behind the scenes to get us a good deal, and I felt that was the case before.. now I picture those same people I thought were on our side traveling the world, drinking pina colada's, sleeping on a mattress of money and having a grand old time ;)
I am not sure if the guy who started it is not just so unhappy. He got $$$$ from Getty didn't he?
Secondly, your closing point about "those same people I thought were on our side traveling the world, drinking pina colada's, sleeping on a mattress of money and having a grand old time", is truly scary
and sickening. It is true. They are not going to be paying those who did not reach payout, so they are going to kill Stockxpert and take the money and run.
There should really be a law against that. This really is giving microstock sites a bad name, and now I am wondering who else will be the next site to screw us.
Oh the guy with the pina colada is the same guy that took $$$ off JUI and stopped representing us.. he used to be on our side, or else I fell for the line, the cold hard truth is that I fell for the line!!!
-
are there any buyers here on this forum?
aeason i ask is that all this volatility and constant shifting of ideas must seem like a lot of instability. in business, that is something any client would hate. i would love to hear from some of the reps from the top buyers of IStock, StockXpert, Photos.com and JIU how they are taking all this.
or do they even care?
-
I don't know who is more pathetic here....We, or Getty? We are pathetic because they are playing with us like we are toys, and they are pathetic because they are so "poor" they want even those 5 cents...
-
I don't know who is more pathetic here....We, or Getty? We are pathetic because they are playing with us like we are toys, and they are pathetic because they are so "poor" they want even those 5 cents...
Only there is a big diff here Whitechild. The 5cts you earn need 100 to make 5bucks. Nothing to shout about. On the other hand, for Getty, 5cts x (number of images sold) can pile up into one big piggy bank.
-
I am ambivalent re this move as I 've been opting in , then out, then in. So really, it doesn't make a difference. But I sure hope some kind of stability and confirmation to the future of StockXpert would be given to us contributors of StockXpert.
For those who followed my topic on StockXpert, you will know that things were that hot with my port over there. I WAS very open about how I felt about Stockxpert since I joined them a little of one year ago. The reviewers were great and the sales were regular even for my tiny portfolio. But these past months have been horror.
I emailed support to voice this a moment ago, and I even told them I wish Stockxpert would finally find some stability. I am not sure if this would help at all, but we can sure make a wish for a GREAT MIRACLE ;)
-
Unfortunately, our views and opinions as contributors have very little power or influence, regardless how much we voice them. I am a buyer as well as a contributor, and from my experience the buyers don't really care or even know about any of this. They need images, they buy them. It doesn't matter what site they buy from because they all have more or less what they are looking for. And the buyers will pay the lowest price, because they can. If prices go up, buyers will pay more. Simple as that. It was not many years ago I was paying hundreds for stock images. I remember telling clients that stock prices have gone down lately, and we can buy an RF image from Corbis for a few hundred dollars instead of thousands for RM, and we were thrilled. Consumer demand is not what has driven prices down, it is competition that has pushed prices down to mere pennies. As much as it sucks to see SX go down (for those who have built up big portfolios there) - maybe it is good to have some competition removed from the industry. With less competition fighting for the lowest price, it might be easier for the bigger players to push prices back up. Maybe (said with hesitation...) this is a step toward positive change. maybe it has to get worse before it gets better. As dismal as things are, I can't help but be optimistic that things in general will improve for the microstock industry. Because the demand for images will continue, and the industry will have to evolve into something that works... eventually. But it's easy for me to say this because my SX port is small and my sales never developed there. So I personally won't miss them.
-
Well, the good, and quite ironic , news is I resumed my uploading to Stockxpert this morning, and my images were approved earlier this evening.
It doesn't sound like the action of a site that is going to be closed down soon .
So here's knocking on wood and fingers crossed for Stockxpert to rise to the challenge for all of us.
I wish them well wholeheartedly.
-
Why is everyone so surprised by this announcement?
It was very clear this was going to be happening - all you had to do was read jjthompson's May 21 front page posting at iStock, where he wrote "... 4. Photos.com – Powered by iStockphoto. We will become the driving force behind Photos.com, improving the quality of the collection with the strength of the iStock brand." What about that is unclear?
-
I wonder if the next announcement will say StockXpert will be shut down? I will be greatly disappointed. ???
PS: I'm opted out. so this news per se doesn't affect me.
Looking at it as a non contributor to either website, and without the doom and gloom, there are a few ways to grow a company, one of these is growth by acquisition, Getty seems to use this method.
After acquisition you look at the poor performing area's, where you can add value and where you can cut costs, Photos.com and JIUUnlimited are likely the poor performing area's so cut them, add value by growing the library quickly by the IS content which has already been approved so they cut costs with not needing inspection, share servers, marketing, development, R&D, premises etc: by merging some of Getty, IS and StockXpert existing staff and properties and infrastructure streamline the business.
StockXpert as a known brand and will share some Customers with IS and also have their own, Getty did not rebrand IS and are not likely to rebrand or close StockXpert why should they, if the wanted to kill competition they could do it with pricing rather than acquisition, as StockXpert was another vertical business they were a good target for a takeover, Getty would not merge the contributors accounts across agencies as cynically a very big part of the revenue stream comes from the 75% of artists that will never make a payout, the payout limits are nothing to do with the cost of managing these accounts, so merging accounts would be a bad move and mean an actual drop in revenue with more contributors making the payout level.
The main aim would be to keep both profitable by sharing resources across different websites, different sites and price points will mean more customers, with the profit coming back to that shareholder or partners, so I think you will just see the two businesses as separate entities under a common umbrella.
David ;D
-
I wonder if the next announcement will say StockXpert will be shut down? I will be greatly disappointed. ???
PS: I'm opted out. so this news per se doesn't affect me.
Looking at it as a non contributor to either website, and without the doom and gloom, there are a few ways to grow a company, one of these is growth by acquisition, Getty seems to use this method.
After acquisition you look at the poor performing area's, where you can add value and where you can cut costs, Photos.com and JIUUnlimited are likely the poor performing area's so cut them, add value by growing the library quickly by the IS content which has already been approved so they cut costs with not needing inspection, share servers, marketing, development, R&D, premises etc: by merging some of Getty, IS and StockXpert existing staff and properties and infrastructure streamline the business.
StockXpert as a known brand and will share some Customers with IS and also have their own, Getty did not rebrand IS and are not likely to rebrand or close StockXpert why should they, if the wanted to kill competition they could do it with pricing rather than acquisition, as StockXpert was another vertical business they were a good target for a takeover, Getty would not merge the contributors accounts across agencies as cynically a very big part of the revenue stream comes from the 75% of artists that will never make a payout, the payout limits are nothing to do with the cost of managing these accounts, so merging accounts would be a bad move and mean an actual drop in revenue with more contributors making the payout level.
The main aim would be to keep both profitable by sharing resources across different websites, different sites and price points will mean more customers, with the profit coming back to that shareholder or partners, so I think you will just see the two businesses as separate entities under a common umbrella.
David ;D
I thought this too, but they culling some of the best selling micro portfolios out of photos.com and replacing with the images that haven't sold on istock. I assumed they would keep both going (and maybe they will) under the precept that it is better that you also own the competition, but the last paragraph says to me, start moving your images because we are going to shut it down. Hopefully I'm wrong :)
-
I suspect that there may be an assumption within the Getty world that contributors who had opted-in to JIU/PC via StockXpert will simply continue to do so via IS. I don't think that it is actually going to work out that way.
I suspect that there may be a lot of unhappy JIU/PC subscribers in the near future who suddenly find themselves with a lot fewer quality images to choose from, what is there will be harder to find because of the IS CV and many light-boxed images will have disappeared too. Any 'boost' to JIU/PC may prove to be a short-lived phenomena.
-
... what is there will be harder to find because of the IS CV ...
The CV provides structure. Sure it needs to be constantly developed and evolved but is a positive step. How else to account for multiple synonyms , languages, regional variations ? Some of the other sites maybe missed their chance to build in something similar or to otherwise provide some sort of structure. Getty did not suddenly come to the CV. The idea of CVs, the thinking behind them had been developed over years. You probably find that your own keyword database structure begins to look like a sub-set (or in some instances a super-set) of roughly the same sort of structures ? In whatever software you use to manage your keywording. Ours certainly do.
-
The CV provides structure. Sure it needs to be constantly developed and evolved but is a positive step. How else to account for multiple synonyms , languages, regional variations ? Some of the other sites maybe missed their chance to build in something similar or to otherwise provide some sort of structure. Getty did not suddenly come to the CV. The idea of CVs, the thinking behind them had been developed over years. You probably find that your own keyword database structure begins to look like a sub-set (or in some instances a super-set) of roughly the same sort of structures ? In whatever software you use to manage your keywording. Ours certainly do.
I'd agree __ but the structure and control needs to be on both the keywords and the search terms (as happens at IS).
At JIU/PC neither the keywords or the search terms are controlled so IS images will presumably be significantly disadvantaged by effectively having many fewer effective keywords. For example plural search words will bring up different results at JUI/PC to the singular term __ but plurals have generally been stripped out of IS files by the CV. Same with different regional spellings, etc.
-
They said that they are going to build photos.com on the Getty CV.
-
They said that they are going to build photos.com on the Getty CV.
They said that we would be credited on our images too. Of course it never actually happened (did anyone really believe them?).
I'd assume to introduce the CV would require the existing wholly-owned content to be manually disambiguated. That's not going to happen either.
-
5 cents is 5 cents -- but what really irks me is that they didn't tell us this up front. There were even multiple questions about this on StockXpert's forum.
Now, if I want to opt-in at istock, it's too late to click just one button -- I have to go to each image and click them separately!
And without the jupiter/photo.com sales, I'll NEVER reach payout level at StockXpert. I've exactly one sale there in the past 3 months -- granted it was a $1.50 non-subscription sale, but that still only 50 cents a month! At that rate, I'm only 9 years away from payout! (assuming $100 payout limit. Is that right?)
-
1. I was naive
2. I was duped
3. Mike Slonecker was right, possibly about everything (oldies might understand that, but the StockXpert crew will for sure)
Wow... I remember Mike Slonecker!! HA.
-
5 cents is 5 cents -- but what really irks me is that they didn't tell us this up front. There were even multiple questions about this on StockXpert's forum.
Now, if I want to opt-in at istock, it's too late to click just one button -- I have to go to each image and click them separately!
And without the jupiter/photo.com sales, I'll NEVER reach payout level at StockXpert. I've exactly one sale there in the past 3 months -- granted it was a $1.50 non-subscription sale, but that still only 50 cents a month! At that rate, I'm only 9 years away from payout! (assuming $100 payout limit. Is that right?)
astrocady, that's a really good question - Payout.
OT perharps... btw, which of the Big 6 has the lowest payout? This could be an incentive to join them.
Can anyone who belongs to all 6 tell us?
Having a site with a low payout means happier contributors. I like to find out.
-
not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but I get a pain now whenever I sit down.
-
OT perharps... btw, which of the Big 6 has the lowest payout? This could be an incentive to join them.
Can anyone who belongs to all 6 tell us?
Minimum Payout Levels:
IS: $100
DT: $100
SS: $75
FT: $50
StockXpert: $50
123RF: $50
BigStock: $30
-
This is a disappointing move by Getty. I'll be losing a lot of revenue from this. Half of my monthly Stockxpert earnings in recent months were coming from the Jupiter Unlimited or Photos.com sales affiliation.
I have 10 times the amount of approved photos on StockXpert than I do on iStock, so this is a real "kick in the crotch" for me. I really don't understand the sense of this move. They're going to be losing a lot of images and cutting down the photos.com and JupiterUnlimited collection sizes dramatically, because I'm sure I'm not the only one that has thousands approved on StockXpert but only hundreds on iStock.
-
Well it was very sneaky move to contributors!
And now they want me to upload my 850 StockXpert accepted images to istock?
How much time should Yuri and other big non-exclusives spend to upload their hundreds of thousands of images to istock CV? AND TO GET ACCEPTED?
I feel like they slapped me in my face with fist!
Well that one who made that decision is really NOT TO BE ON POSITION WHERE HE IS NOW! I publicly state that Getty decision maker is #$#$#$#$#$$##$$##$$###$$###$ MOTHER FU###!
This just makes me furious and I wish to fight back to Getty the best way I can.
-
I don't have tens of thousands of images, but I have nearly 5k on StockXpert (approx same ones as on istock) and they are going to lose them all from Photos/JIU because I cannot bring myself to swallow this .05/DL slap in the face from Getty.
I think the culling from Photos/JIU has already begun because over the last several days my sub sales there have declined markedly.
-
I don't have tens of thousands of images, but I have nearly 5k on StockXpert (approx same ones as on istock) and they are going to lose them all from Photos/JIU because I cannot bring myself to swallow this .05/DL slap in the face from Getty.
I think the culling from Photos/JIU has already begun because over the last several days my sub sales there have declined markedly.
Noticed that here too... They've rocked all three almost as 60% of shutterstock sales for me!
-
I was looking at the incomes from Photos.com and JIUnlimited and can't see why I would continue to submit to StockXpert after the images are removed from these subagents. The income level would be too low to bother. One of the top 6 quickly becomes also-ran.
-
OT perharps... btw, which of the Big 6 has the lowest payout? This could be an incentive to join them.
Can anyone who belongs to all 6 tell us?
Minimum Payout Levels:
IS: $100
DT: $100
SS: $75
FT: $50
StockXpert: $50
123RF: $50
BigStock: $30
Thank you GeoPappas. It's interesting to note that only SS payout at 75, which is lower than IS and DT. This being the real "industry leader", and prevalent unseated "leader" of micro; not IS as they claim to be. IS has been moving back and forth among Fotolia and Dreamstime, and yes, Stockxpert.
Further, from the impression at this forum, SS contributors make more sales than IS, FT and DT, right? ie. they reach payout a lot sooner and more regularly because SS has a more effective marketing plan?
-
I don't have tens of thousands of images, but I have nearly 5k on StockXpert (approx same ones as on istock) and they are going to lose them all from Photos/JIU because I cannot bring myself to swallow this .05/DL slap in the face from Getty.
Sorry for not paying better attention, but I would like to clarify the references to 5 cents. You aren't saying that you will be paid 5 cents per download, but that you'll be paid 5 cents less than you are being paid now? Is that correct?
(ETA: This is a serious question, because it was my understanding that the non-exclusive payment would be flat 25 cents.Never mind. I understand.)
-
Well it was very sneaky move to contributors!
And now they want me to upload my 850 StockXpert accepted images to istock?
How much time should Yuri and other big non-exclusives spend to upload their hundreds of thousands of images to istock CV? AND TO GET ACCEPTED?
I feel like they slapped me in my face with fist!
Well that one who made that decision is really NOT TO BE ON POSITION WHERE HE IS NOW! I publicly state that Getty decision maker is #$#$#$#$#$$##$$##$$###$$###$ MOTHER FU###!
This just makes me furious and I wish to fight back to Getty the best way I can.
You said, "And now they want me to upload my 850 StockXpert accepted images to istock?"
That does not mean all 850 is going to be approved, either ! IS don't want the "garbage" of StockXpert ;)
-
OT perharps... btw, which of the Big 6 has the lowest payout? This could be an incentive to join them.
Can anyone who belongs to all 6 tell us?
BigStock has the lowest: $30 for PayPal. Then Fotolia*, StockXpert and 123RF at $50. Then Shutterstock at $75. iStock and Dreamstime bring up the rear at $100.
*Fotolia will let you cash out any time, but hit you with a fee if you have less than $50 in your account.
-
I don't have tens of thousands of images, but I have nearly 5k on StockXpert (approx same ones as on istock) and they are going to lose them all from Photos/JIU because I cannot bring myself to swallow this .05/DL slap in the face from Getty.
I see this as a test... if you were to accept the 5 cent decrease the industry will learn that you will accept pennies for photos. I will not opt into IS. I am sad to see this happen to StockXpert, even with their problems they were responsive and friendly. My sales also seem to strictly come from JIU & Photos.com so I'm sure everything will drop to nothing...I have also already seen a decline.
I also wonder how this affects the end user who has a contract with the StockXpert three?
-
To me it isn't so much about the 5c it's that I can't be bothered to go and tick each image individually. Apparently it's too late to just opt them all in,
-
M@M said "what's going to happen to the money we have already accumulated on StockXpert?"
My thoughts exactly.
Incidentally, then SV moved to Veer, they paid me what I had accumulated even if it was just a few dollars and did not reach payout point.
Let's see if Getty is as honourable as Corbis in this sense.
If they're not generating enough sales for you to generate a payment every week/month let alone the 90 day notice they gave you, why are you worrying?
-
I think Stockxpert's days are numbered. Why else would they actually remove the images from the Jupiter distribution channels. What I don't get is why did they go to trouble recently to go through stockxpert's images and remove the ones they considered having copyright issues. Seems like a waste of time.
-
Well it was very sneaky move to contributors!
And now they want me to upload my 850 StockXpert accepted images to istock?
How much time should Yuri and other big non-exclusives spend to upload their hundreds of thousands of images to istock CV? AND TO GET ACCEPTED?
I feel like they slapped me in my face with fist!
Well that one who made that decision is really NOT TO BE ON POSITION WHERE HE IS NOW! I publicly state that Getty decision maker is #$#$#$#$#$$##$$##$$###$$###$ MOTHER FU###!
This just makes me furious and I wish to fight back to Getty the best way I can.
You said, "And now they want me to upload my 850 StockXpert accepted images to istock?"
That does not mean all 850 is going to be approved, either ! IS don't want the "garbage" of StockXpert ;)
THAT WHAT YOU CALLED 'GARBAGE' MADE VERY GOOD MONEY TO StockXpert, GETTY AND ME!
BTW, I don't plan to sell that 'garbage' on 'stylish', 'the leader', 'the best' Getty runned places - It was F*ck up once - I don't let to be *removed coarse language* up twice from same source!
BTW, Do you have idea how long is needed to upload 850 files with producing additional 100 monthly and istock upload limits? Not in a life time!
Footage don't count - it is just several terrabytes!
So on Microstock there is only one true leader: SHUTTERSTOCK!
-
I don't have tens of thousands of images, but I have nearly 5k on StockXpert (approx same ones as on istock) and they are going to lose them all from Photos/JIU because I cannot bring myself to swallow this .05/DL slap in the face from Getty.
Sorry for not paying better attention, but I would like to clarify the references to 5 cents. You aren't saying that you will be paid 5 cents per download, but that you'll be paid 5 cents less than you are being paid now? Is that correct?
(ETA: This is a serious question, because it was my understanding that the non-exclusive payment would be flat 25 cents.Never mind. I understand.)
Yes, you have it right. Sorry if I wasn't clear. They are reducing our payout by .05, from .30 to .25. Which is just incredibly chintzy and insulting.
I have sold images for .25. Heck, I still get a few XS sales on istock for that or even less.
The point for me is they already have my images there, they are selling well. Getty can clearly afford the .30 they are already paying me, but they want to hose me out of a lousy .05 per sale just because they think they can.
I agree with the others here who have mentioned they are going to do everything they can to support Veer in hopes of providing an effective counterweight to Getty's attempts at monopoly.
-
I don't have tens of thousands of images, but I have nearly 5k on StockXpert (approx same ones as on istock) and they are going to lose them all from Photos/JIU because I cannot bring myself to swallow this .05/DL slap in the face from Getty.
Sorry for not paying better attention, but I would like to clarify the references to 5 cents. You aren't saying that you will be paid 5 cents per download, but that you'll be paid 5 cents less than you are being paid now? Is that correct?
(ETA: This is a serious question, because it was my understanding that the non-exclusive payment would be flat 25 cents.Never mind. I understand.)
Yes, you have it right. Sorry if I wasn't clear. They are reducing our payout by .05, from .30 to .25. Which is just incredibly chintzy and insulting.
I have sold images for .25. Heck, I still get a few XS sales on istock for that or even less.
The point for me is they already have my images there, they are selling well. Getty can clearly afford the .30 they are already paying me, but they want to hose me out of a lousy .05 per sale just because they think they can.
I agree with the others here who have mentioned they are going to do everything they can to support Veer in hopes of providing an effective counterweight to Getty's attempts at monopoly.
And not just Veer - there is something about Fotosearch too - they sell how Puravida stated 'garbage' which istock 'don't need'.
-
I am surprised that so many people are are upset for loosing out on the photos.com and JIU sales. There weren't much anyways and I opted out last month, because I thought these little earnings are not worth it submitting to sites which pays as low as 30 cents for a subscription download.
For me nothing changes, but yes its kind of a bad move for Getty trying to lower our commission. My bet is they will just end up with a lot less images.
-
I don't have tens of thousands of images, but I have nearly 5k on StockXpert (approx same ones as on istock) and they are going to lose them all from Photos/JIU because I cannot bring myself to swallow this .05/DL slap in the face from Getty.
Sorry for not paying better attention, but I would like to clarify the references to 5 cents. You aren't saying that you will be paid 5 cents per download, but that you'll be paid 5 cents less than you are being paid now? Is that correct?
(ETA: This is a serious question, because it was my understanding that the non-exclusive payment would be flat 25 cents.Never mind. I understand.)
Yes, you have it right. Sorry if I wasn't clear. They are reducing our payout by .05, from .30 to .25. Which is just incredibly chintzy and insulting.
I have sold images for .25. Heck, I still get a few XS sales on istock for that or even less.
The point for me is they already have my images there, they are selling well. Getty can clearly afford the .30 they are already paying me, but they want to hose me out of a lousy .05 per sale just because they think they can.
I agree with the others here who have mentioned they are going to do everything they can to support Veer in hopes of providing an effective counterweight to Getty's attempts at monopoly.
Thanks, Lisa, for explaining. I wasn't planning to opt-in more than the handful of formerly deactivated files anyway. In all honesty, I thought I'd misread something regarding the non-exclusive payments since at the time of the announcement it wasn't going to apply to me. Now that I'm on the countdown to be uncrowned, I need to start paying better attention to these things.
-
The point for me is they already have my images there, they are selling well. Getty can clearly afford the .30 they are already paying me, but they want to hose me out of a lousy .05 per sale just because they think they can.
I agree with the others here who have mentioned they are going to do everything they can to support Veer in hopes of providing an effective counterweight to Getty's attempts at monopoly.
I think this is going to backfire on Getty & Co. The way they're messing about with the JIU/PC customers is just going to drive them into the arms of the competition. I wonder if they've written to advise them that 3M images are shortly to be removed from the library? The PC forums might make interesting reading in 89-odd days!
Surely SS, DT & FT are the real counterweight to Getty? Veer will have do to extremely well (and spend an awful lot of money) to get anywhere near the current market share of those three within the next 3-4 years.
-
The point for me is they already have my images there, they are selling well. Getty can clearly afford the .30 they are already paying me, but they want to hose me out of a lousy .05 per sale just because they think they can.
I agree with the others here who have mentioned they are going to do everything they can to support Veer in hopes of providing an effective counterweight to Getty's attempts at monopoly.
I think this is going to backfire on Getty & Co. The way they're messing about with the JIU/PC customers is just going to drive them into the arms of the competition. I wonder if they've written to advise them that 3M images are shortly to be removed from the library? The PC forums might make interesting reading in 89-odd days!
Surely SS, DT & FT are the real counterweight to Getty? Veer will have do to extremely well (and spend an awful lot of money) to get anywhere near the current market share of those three within the next 3-4 years.
Well, I am sure that Corbis will understand and accept that challenge ;-)
June 16, 2009
(Stockxpert pay-per-download) 2 $4.00
June 16, 2009
(Stockxpert subscription) 1 $0.30
June 16, 2009
(Photos.com subscription) 2 $0.60
June 16, 2009
(Jupiterimages Unlimited subscription) 2 $0.60
-
I think this is going to backfire on Getty & Co. The way they're messing about with the JIU/PC customers is just going to drive them into the arms of the competition. I wonder if they've written to advise them that 3M images are shortly to be removed from the library? The PC forums might make interesting reading in 89-odd days!
Surely SS, DT & FT are the real counterweight to Getty? Veer will have do to extremely well (and spend an awful lot of money) to get anywhere near the current market share of those three within the next 3-4 years.
I definitely think it will backfire too, if enough of us with big ports stay opted out. Although I am baffled to read a couple of fairly successful independent contributors on istock's forums asking how to opt in to this or complaining that they thought they were opted in but aren't. ???
If anyone here is a member of those designer forums gostwyck mentioned they should probably post about this so the designers are aware what's coming, and can at least buy anything they have lightboxed before it vanishes.
On DT, Fotolia and SS, absolutely, they are and have been great counterweights to Getty so far. I just don't know that all their owners would be immune to being bought out if the price was right. Because Veer is owned by the only other titan in the industry - Corbis - I think they are not so vulnerable to a buy out. I don't know that they will succeed, but I sincerely hope so.
At a minimum I would like to make back on Veer what I am losing on StockXpert's demise.
-
Although I am baffled to read a couple of fairly successful independent contributors on istock's forums asking how to opt in to this or complaining that they thought they were opted in but aren't. ???
So was I. It's not the first time I've been totally perplexed by one of those individuals though. Strange that he now want's his entire port there via IS although to date he has less 20% of it there via StockXpert. It's like 25c is more of an incentive than 30c to him. Hmm.
-
So was I. It's not the first time I've been totally perplexed by one of those individuals though. Strange that he now want's his entire port there via IS although to date he has less 20% of it there via StockXpert. It's like 25c is more of an incentive than 30c to him. Hmm.
LOL. If that's the case maybe we should have all jumped at the (possibly-as-low-as) 3 cents that was originally proposed ;D
-
LOL. If that's the case maybe we should have all jumped at the (possibly-as-low-as) 3 cents that was originally proposed ;D
Staggeringly there really were people convinced that the 22% was the better deal __ and silly old mathematics wasn't going to convince them otherwise.
-
Am I the only one who has noticed that istock exclusives have been silent on the subject of independents getting the shaft with the .05 royalty decrease?
Not that I should be surprised, but it is somewhat disappointing after a number of us where very active in sharing our experiences with Photos.com and JIU and very vocal in advocating a better deal for exclusives.
Some of the most vocal and militant exclusives involved in the "opt out" campaign are suddenly apologists for Getty/HF now that it is only independents getting lowballed?
Can someone explain this to me?
-
What is there to explain?
You see your stats at StockXpert. Just think about how many similar stats are there...
They will try to transfer that sales to iStock exclusives...
But, I don't think that with independents excluded they will have great deal for their buyers! We as non-exclusives bring much more than they can bring to market in order of istock standard blabla standards... I was always working with breaking the standards and rules - it is called OUT OF THE BOX - with good success. I am quite sure they will have uniform images on photos.com/JUI and all that will draw buyers from istock to one of that two bigger competitiors or to veer and other sites not owned by Getty ;-)
Anyway, in long term istock will go down for sure because Getty don't care about people - they care only about pluses and minuses with management making that minuses dissapear and pluses multiply!
So... In some time there will be some similar message posted on istock stating that contributors are free to apply to photos.com and JUI :D
-
Am I the only one who has noticed that istock exclusives have been silent on the subject of independents getting the shaft with the .05 royalty decrease?
Not that I should be surprised, but it is somewhat disappointing after a number of us where very active in sharing our experiences with Photos.com and JIU and very vocal in advocating a better deal for exclusives.
Some of the most vocal and militant exclusives involved in the "opt out" campaign are suddenly apologists for Getty/HF now that it is only independents getting lowballed?
Can someone explain this to me?
Sad to so say Lisa, but did you really spected things to have gone differently?
-
I took a look at the Photos.com forum.
LOTS of buyers PISSED that the site changed when PhotosPlus started, ... lots of new pictures, but not on their subscription plan. Basically playing a heavy hand to force the upgrade to their buyers.
Interestingly, a few were threatening defection to iStock...
Anyway, it was an interesting read. (We aren't going to be affected by it at all. We opted out on StockXpert, and we are opting out on iStock.)
Gebbie
-
Some of the most vocal and militant exclusives involved in the "opt out" campaign are suddenly apologists for Getty/HF now that it is only independents getting lowballed?
I haven't been following the IS forums for a while and definitely lost interested in this subs thing early on, since I didn't intend to participate.
Are you saying that there are exclusives on the iS forums saying that there is nothing wrong with what they are doing?? No wonder we get such a bad rap.
ETA: I went and read the last couple of pages of the thread, and I guess I see what you mean. However, I suspect Sean might be right about many exclusives, having already made their choice about participating, have just not been keeping up with further developments in the situation (except maybe for those are are planning to opt-in). (Not trying to be an apologist for them, just thinking out loud.) ;)
-
Am I the only one who has noticed that istock exclusives have been silent on the subject of independents getting the shaft with the .05 royalty decrease?
Not that I should be surprised, but it is somewhat disappointing after a number of us where very active in sharing our experiences with Photos.com and JIU and very vocal in advocating a better deal for exclusives.
Some of the most vocal and militant exclusives involved in the "opt out" campaign are suddenly apologists for Getty/HF now that it is only independents getting lowballed?
Can someone explain this to me?
Surprised me much too. I thought the exclusives were unhappy with being screwed, O well, as they say, silence mean consent. It's a terrible thought but once you (Arschkriecher ) used to lick, it's hard to stand up shout (* Bwana, No)
-
So you think there's no possibility that those who believe that even the modified exclusive plan sucks have already opted out, and have spoken in that way, rather than ranting further on the forum about it?
-
If you're asking me (whatalife). I say that exclusive have no choice, unlike the indies. They either roll over and die, or bitch under their breath.
Other than a handful who were outspoken, I think most of them, even Sean, were pretty softspoken. A change of character from the heavy handed brash attitude they once had here in this forum whenever someone screams at IS.
Out of character? that's only to put it mildly, a gross understatement.
-
They have the choice of whether or not to participate. Many I have spoken to have opted out.
I'm not I get what you are saying with the "softspoken" stuff. Are you saying that you are surprised we aren't screaming to defend IS on this particular issue? Could it be because some of us agree with what is being said? I guess that doesn't go along with the favored stereotype of the exclusive sheeple.
-
No, I was expecting the strong minded exclusives to form a coalition to migrate en masse out of exclusivity in protest to show their disapproval to Getty's heavy handedness. If that doesn't move Getty to retract their action, it would at least shift the power with a great number of strong portfolios being made available elsewhere.
Shaking the tree that buyers would move elsewhere too, but Getty knows none of these strong hearts would dare move a muscle like this. NATO.
-
No, I was expecting the strong minded exclusives to form a coalition to migrate en masse out of exclusivity in protest to show their disapproval to Getty's heavy handedness.
I don't know about anyone else or a coalition, and they probably don't really give a flip, but that's exactly what I did.
-
No, I was expecting the strong minded exclusives to form a coalition to migrate en masse out of exclusivity in protest to show their disapproval to Getty's heavy handedness. If that doesn't move Getty to retract their action, it would at least shift the power with a great number of strong portfolios being made available elsewhere.
Shaking the tree that buyers would move elsewhere too, but Getty knows none of these strong hearts would dare move a muscle like this. NATO.
Sorry, I'm opting out at this point. I don't see anything huge to protest over right now. Either you want to participate or you don't.
-
No, I was expecting the strong minded exclusives to form a coalition to migrate en masse out of exclusivity in protest to show their disapproval to Getty's heavy handedness.
I don't know about anyone else or a coalition, and they probably don't really give a flip, but that's exactly what I did.
Wow, that's awesome. I wish you good results ! There should be more like you!
-
No, I was expecting the strong minded exclusives to form a coalition to migrate en masse out of exclusivity in protest to show their disapproval to Getty's heavy handedness.
I don't know about anyone else or a coalition, and they probably don't really give a flip, but that's exactly what I did.
Wow, that's awesome. I wish you good results ! There should be more like you!
Well, thanks, but my opinion on this has stayed the same. Everyone has to make their own choice for their own reasons and it's not up to me to browbeat someone else into agreeing with what I've decided for myself.
-
So you think there's no possibility that those who believe that even the modified exclusive plan sucks have already opted out, and have spoken in that way, rather than ranting further on the forum about it?
That's my position. I've said I don't like the original changes, said it's a lousy business choice in the original threads - and for what it's worth I think as far as Getty is concerned this one is even worse, because of what it does to independent contributors - it makes it very difficult for the independents who are prolific shooters to get their ports up in large volumes on the Gety owned subs site- and it's that sort of continuing volume of new stufff that subs sites need to get people to keep on coming back and renewing their subscriptions. totally wierd. For exclusives it means less competition on photos.com/JUI so subs sales of their underperforming stuff may go better there- but it makes competition between istock itself and the subs much more likely as there will be more overlap betwen the two sites and much more co-identification so istock itself it more likely to lose sales. All in all very very strange marketing. Let alone the issues about treatment of suppliers.
But there's no point rehashing things on the istock forums again. I've said my piece multiple times and been ignored. Nothing I can do except opt out.
-
I think we are automatically opted out unless you opted in, I never opted in in the first place, so Istock won't get my images for this crappy deal.. It's unfortunate to lose the income from StockXpert though.. Getty is typical corporate America and unfortunately they will listen to their board and investors and not to their contributors so I will just do my part to not help them screw us more..
-
So you think there's no possibility that those who believe that even the modified exclusive plan sucks have already opted out, and have spoken in that way, rather than ranting further on the forum about it?
That's about where I am - I opted out and will stay opted out unless something changes. I'm sorry Lisa feels that independents got hung out to dry by exclusives, but I see a rather more fragmented situation. There were exclusives who (to my way of thinking) are slitting their own throats and everyone else's in the process by putting content both on iStock and on the partner sites.
There's one diamond independent who said he'd opted in (in the IS forums) - this type of thing undercuts other independents' ability to get Getty's attention when they lose a ton of content after they drop the StockXpert stuff. Seems you should be at least as upset about the lack of solidarity in the indepdent ranks. Both hurt contributors in the long run.
I looked at the possibility of going independent again when this whole mess started, but honestly with the situation at the other micros at the moment, it really isn't a very appealing prospect. FT and DT have or are about to cut commissions. 123rf and BigStock sales haven't been good for many, and quite a number seem to have had SS (long the strong lead dog in the group of other agencies) not do so well.
As I see it the only thing that will change Getty's mind is when the Photos.com+/JIU subscribers yell at them because there's a huge drop in available images. At that point I assume they'll rethink their commission grab and offer something more reasaonable. Talking isn't going to do squat at this point, IMO.
So, if you want change, opt out. If you take the money and opt in, then don't complain about the outcome.
-
-------------------->>>
There's one diamond independent who said he'd opted in (in the IS forums) - this type of thing undercuts other independents' ability to get Getty's attention when they lose a ton of content after they drop the StockXpert stuff. Seems you should be at least as upset about the lack of solidarity in the indepdent ranks. Both hurt contributors in the long run.
--->>>should be at least as upset about the lack of solidarity in the indepdent ranks===>>
YES, self interest is a hideous double edge sword.
-
I'm an exclusive - the announcement is a bad deal for independents. if you hold out for a better deal and are successful, that's good for exclusives in the long run too. Most contributors have already made their decisions and aren't going back to those threads. expecting anyone to stand up for anyone in an istock thread is unrealistic. the alliances shift so much, it's like watching Survivor.
-
No, I was expecting the strong minded exclusives to form a coalition to migrate en masse out of exclusivity in protest to show their disapproval to Getty's heavy handedness. If that doesn't move Getty to retract their action, it would at least shift the power with a great number of strong portfolios being made available elsewhere.
Shaking the tree that buyers would move elsewhere too, but Getty knows none of these strong hearts would dare move a muscle like this. NATO.
I have to wonder whether such a move would play directly into grubby hands of Getty, instantly improving their bottom line, somewhere some Suits would get a bonus. And history would indicate that 'elsewhere' will become a smaller place.
-
No, I was expecting the strong minded exclusives to form a coalition to migrate en masse out of exclusivity in protest to show their disapproval to Getty's heavy handedness. If that doesn't move Getty to retract their action, it would at least shift the power with a great number of strong portfolios being made available elsewhere.
Shaking the tree that buyers would move elsewhere too, but Getty knows none of these strong hearts would dare move a muscle like this. NATO.
I have to wonder whether such a move would play directly into grubby hands of Getty, instantly improving their bottom line, somewhere some Suits would get a bonus. And history would indicate that 'elsewhere' will become a smaller place.
Not that there is a snowball's chance in hell of it happening, but losing a significant number of exclusives, who then turn around and duplicate their formerly exclusive to istock wares on competing sites with lower prices and higher commissions would negate much of why (it is widely argued) buyers were willing to pay the higher prices in the first place.
I harbor absolutely no delusions that my individual action is going to "stick it to Getty" even a little bit. I am feeling a whole lot better about myself though now that I won't be completely at the mercy of whatever their next surprise is going to be.
-
Lets hope that buyers at Photos.com and JUI will be informed they can find all removed images at StockXpert...if it stays alive of course.
-
ETA: I went and read the last couple of pages of the thread, and I guess I see what you mean. However, I suspect Sean might be right about many exclusives, having already made their choice about participating, have just not been keeping up with further developments in the situation (except maybe for those are are planning to opt-in). (Not trying to be an apologist for them, just thinking out loud.) ;)
I normally don't whine about stuff like this. Must have been at a low ebb yesterday when I wrote this gripe. I didn't see Sean's response as I have been afraid to check in at the istock thread to see if I have been burned in effigy ;)
That does make sense though, about not keeping up after making their own decisions. It's just a bummer that non-exclusives are getting hosed and hardly a peep from anybody (at the time I posted).
-
Maybe the more important actions are the quiet ones and not the ones that are "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" ;)
-
There's one diamond independent who said he'd opted in (in the IS forums) - this type of thing undercuts other independents' ability to get Getty's attention when they lose a ton of content after they drop the StockXpert stuff. Seems you should be at least as upset about the lack of solidarity in the indepdent ranks. Both hurt contributors in the long run.
If you mean me, I am not happy about that and already made the same point up a bit further up in this thread. And in addition to the diamond there is a high level, prolific gold independent who also said she's opting in. Personally I think they are nuts.
Don't know yet what the real biggies - Yuri, Andres, et al. are planning to do. They don't seem to bother with forums much. Maybe it's no big deal to them. Hope I am that rich one day that this stuff doesn't matter to me either ;)
Very pertinent Shakespeare quote Whatalife. Hope you are right :D
-
Very pertinent Shakespeare quote Whatalife. Hope you are right :D
Never mind Shakey, I prefer the one used for NATO coined a long time ago by some angry citizen ...
N-o A-ction T-alk O-nly.
-
I didn't see Sean's response as I have been afraid to check in at the istock thread to see if I have been burned in effigy ;)
You might want to go have a look - no burning Lisa going on at all:) I saw mostly support, if from exclusives resigned to the unpleasant state of things generally with respect to the Partner program, not gathering up their pitchforks to storm the castle :)
I do think that when you look at what's gone on with commission reductions at FT and DT, where the sites made the argument that they were reducing the percentage but overall your income would go up (they predicted), a number of independents, including you Lisa if I remember correctly, said that as long as the overall income was going up, you would live with the decrease in percentages. I don't really see a difference between accepting that and accepting that Getty has just reduced the commissions on Photos.com+/JIU sales for StockXpert contributors. If the total monthly take went up because Getty marketed the heck out of the site, would that make you less angry with the situation?
I don't know if the fact that contributors just accepted it when FT and DT cut/announced a cut in commission percentages emboldened Getty, but I've generally thought that like kids, if they get away with it once, they'll try it again with a bit more next time.
-
Perhaps too many people have now made themselves dependent on microstock income, and the agencies have got them by the short and curlies.
-
Perhaps too many people have now made themselves dependent on microstock income, and the agencies have got them by the short and curlies.
Or contributors are mostly decided it's better to be with the devil they know .
-
If you mean me, I am not happy about that and already made the same point up a bit further up in this thread. And in addition to the diamond there is a high level, prolific gold independent who also said she's opting in. Personally I think they are nuts.
I wouldn't worry too much about it. Once they actually get to see the pathetic dribbles of income they get from JIU/PC it will temper their enthusiasm somewhat.
You did well stirring the pot over there too __ it brought out quite a few more heartfelt comments regarding the situation.
Getty have sacrificed a staggering amount of contributor goodwill in this exercise which will probably end up generating very little money for either themselves or contributors.
I really can't imagine how JIU/PC subscribers are going to feel when 90% (literally!) of the entire library disappears overnight in 3 months time. Yes, they'll get a few more from IS, but even if 10% of IS images are transferred over (which I doubt) then the 3M images they've lost will be replaced by 500K older stock images that have been largely ignored by buyers up to now. I can see litigation being threatened if customers had subscribed specifically to access the 3M images that appeared to be on offer. It's going to look like a 'bait and switch' job to them.
-
I really can't imagine how JIU/PC subscribers are going to feel when 90% (literally!) of the entire library disappears overnight in 3 months time. Yes, they'll get a few more from IS, but even if 10% of IS images are transferred over (which I doubt) then the 3M images they've lost will be replaced by 500K older stock images that have been largely ignored by buyers up to now. I can see litigation being threatened if customers had subscribed specifically to access the 3M images that appeared to be on offer. It's going to look like a 'bait and switch' job to them.
Good point ,gostwyck, I think whitechild pointed out the same thing too .
But oh I am sure Getty will liquidate way before there is litigation. You cannot get redress from a defunct company. Getty is not just some dumb establishment.
-
Why didn't Getty just combine the two libraries? It would have made Photos.com and JUI the largest microstock library in the world. Doesn't make any sense.
-
Getty have sacrificed a staggering amount of contributor goodwill in this exercise which will probably end up generating very little money for either themselves or contributors.
I really can't imagine how JIU/PC subscribers are going to feel when 90% (literally!) of the entire library disappears overnight in 3 months time. Yes, they'll get a few more from IS, but even if 10% of IS images are transferred over (which I doubt) then the 3M images they've lost will be replaced by 500K older stock images that have been largely ignored by buyers up to now. I can see litigation being threatened if customers had subscribed specifically to access the 3M images that appeared to be on offer. It's going to look like a 'bait and switch' job to them.
Both excellent points Gostwyck. On the contributor goodwill, you really hit a bullseye. Contributor goodwill seems completely irrelevant to Getty. Puts istock in an awkward position because I have always felt istock and its staff valued contributors and worked hard at keeping them satisfied.
Brave new world we are in.
@ JoAnn, on the subscription thing and the price drop, I feel this is more comparable to when Fotolia tried to give less than .30 for sub sales. There was (thank goodness) a big outcry over that one and fortunately we got higher rates.
I know there are a couple of piddly little sites - Canstock and Crestock (both at 1% of my earnings, so next to no traffic on either) that pay .25 for subs, but there really seems no excuse for a major company like Getty to get away with it.
I know I have said as long as my overall numbers go up I am okay. I just can't see how losing StockXpert, which is regularly 8-10% of my income and having that replaced with .25 subs of my worst selling images (if I were to opt in, which of course I won't) would not be a net loss???
-
I really can't imagine how JIU/PC subscribers are going to feel when 90% (literally!) of the entire library disappears overnight in 3 months time. Yes, they'll get a few more from IS, but even if 10% of IS images are transferred over (which I doubt) then the 3M images they've lost will be replaced by 500K older stock images that have been largely ignored by buyers up to now. I can see litigation being threatened if customers had subscribed specifically to access the 3M images that appeared to be on offer. It's going to look like a 'bait and switch' job to them.
Good point ,gostwyck, I think whitechild pointed out the same thing too .
But oh I am sure Getty will liquidate way before there is litigation. You cannot get redress from a defunct company. Getty is not just some dumb establishment.
Getty are no stranger to litigation, the more info you gather about them, the more you realise they BELIEVE they are invincible, they really do, and they will never work to keep contributors happy, that's not how they got where they are today.. the below link is an interesting one that people don't seem to know about, or maybe they don't care either I dont know!
http://www.draiochtwebdesign.com/blog/photographers-sue-getty-for-copyright-infringement (http://www.draiochtwebdesign.com/blog/photographers-sue-getty-for-copyright-infringement)
-
Getty are no stranger to litigation, the more info you gather about them, the more you realise they BELIEVE they are invincible, they really do, and they will never work to keep contributors happy, that's not how they got where they are today.. the below link is an interesting one that people don't seem to know about, or maybe they don't care either I dont know!
[url]http://www.draiochtwebdesign.com/blog/photographers-sue-getty-for-copyright-infringement[/url] ([url]http://www.draiochtwebdesign.com/blog/photographers-sue-getty-for-copyright-infringement[/url])
Noo kidding, hqimages. Thx for the link. I was only kidding, but now I think I should spend less time here farting around and spend more time googling on Getty's hidden can of worms.
This is going to be interesting read for me. Thx again.
Update:
But this was 4 November 2008. What was the outcome? Do you know?
-
Finally got the time (and cojones) to read the istock thread. Looks like I really misjudged the silence over there and the mood of exclusive contributors.
Hope anyone who was offended by my rant accepts my apologies. Serves me right for TWP <-- Typing When Pissed
-
Getty are no stranger to litigation, the more info you gather about them, the more you realise they BELIEVE they are invincible, they really do, and they will never work to keep contributors happy, that's not how they got where they are today.. the below link is an interesting one that people don't seem to know about, or maybe they don't care either I dont know!
[url]http://www.draiochtwebdesign.com/blog/photographers-sue-getty-for-copyright-infringement[/url] ([url]http://www.draiochtwebdesign.com/blog/photographers-sue-getty-for-copyright-infringement[/url])
Noo kidding, hqimages. Thx for the link. I was only kidding, but now I think I should spend less time here farting around and spend more time googling on Getty's hidden can of worms.
This is going to be interesting read for me. Thx again.
Ur welcome :) If you google it, I think there's only one other web page covering the story on the net, it stayed under the radar which is why I wanted to keep it in my blog, along with the link to the case file and stuff too..
I like to collect everything that happens, somehow with all the info I have, I see the microstock story reaching a dramatic conclusion, everything is picking up pace, the monopoly is almost complete, and the race to the bottom is almost complete too.. I think when microstock comes out the other side, it will have reverted to the kind of quality it used to be, for proper amatuers, I cannot even see people with galleries and production like Yuri's being capable of sqeezing a profit out of it, it is facinating though, this wild west lawless style of doing business!!
(That case is still pending, but Ill be posting on my blog when anything happens with it)
-
Thx , I will be following it too.
It all depends on what fine prints these photographers signed to in their initial agreement. If there is a clause that empowers Getty to make any changes , I am sure that would be the loophole to spring Getty.
But the catch here is selling RM port as low priced sub . I like to see their lawyers pull a rabbit out of this hat.
-
Thx , I will be following it too.
It all depends on what fine prints these photographers signed to in their initial agreement. If there is a clause that empowers Getty to make any changes , I am sure that would be the loophole to spring Getty.
But the catch here is selling RM port as low priced sub . I like to see their lawyers pull a rabbit out of this hat.
What's great about what those photographers are doing too, is that if they do win, it benefits us. It means there's an onus on the agency to give us what we signed up for, which is a fair price for our work. For example, they would have to leave an opt out for subscription pricing on IS and other web sites that used to be pay-as-you-go with a better return for the photographer.. I hope they suceed anyway, and it could even save 'pay-as-you-go' models, rather than the current trend of sub royalties which are just pathetic from the photographer point of view!!
In fact, I was surprised there wasn't a squeak out of IS photog's about the removal of subscription opt-out, and there was no change in the terms to reflect that all files are now in the subscription pricing format as a compulsory 'feature'.. even if you are opted-in, you should always fight for the right to CHOOSE the pricing for your images..
-
What's great about what those photographers are doing too, is that if they do win, it benefits us. It means there's an onus on the agency to give us what we signed up for, which is a fair price for our work. For example, they would have to leave an opt out for subscription pricing on IS and other web sites that used to be pay-as-you-go with a better return for the photographer.. I hope they suceed anyway, and it could even save 'pay-as-you-go' models, rather than the current trend of sub royalties which are just pathetic from the photographer point of view!!
Yes! But if Getty wins, time to pull out of anything that has Getty's signature on it.
In fact, I was surprised there wasn't a squeak out of IS photog's about the removal of subscription opt-out, and there was no change in the terms to reflect that all files are now in the subscription pricing format as a compulsory 'feature'.. even if you are opted-in, you should always fight for the right to CHOOSE the pricing for your images..
It's hard to teach old dogs new tricks ;)
-
BTW hqimages, you got one heart for the link . Been nice talking with you!
-
BTW hqimages, you got one heart for the link . Been nice talking with you!
Aw thanks! You too!!
-
hope the reality is less awful than the predictions here.
-
Getty are no stranger to litigation, the more info you gather about them, the more you realise they BELIEVE they are invincible, they really do, and they will never work to keep contributors happy, that's not how they got where they are today.. the below link is an interesting one that people don't seem to know about, or maybe they don't care either I dont know!
[url]http://www.draiochtwebdesign.com/blog/photographers-sue-getty-for-copyright-infringement[/url] ([url]http://www.draiochtwebdesign.com/blog/photographers-sue-getty-for-copyright-infringement[/url])
Wow, thanks for the link HQ. Scary as he11 what Getty has been up to.
Hope the photographers win.
-
(deleted off-topic comment; sorry)
-
here's the PDN link to the lawsuit - the photographers are sueing for $100 million - ouch!
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/photo-news/stock-and-syndication/e3i397aa99d2932d77d65e1c5fe64ef8c40 (http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/photo-news/stock-and-syndication/e3i397aa99d2932d77d65e1c5fe64ef8c40)
-
Getty are no stranger to litigation, the more info you gather about them, the more you realise they BELIEVE they are invincible, they really do, and they will never work to keep contributors happy, that's not how they got where they are today.. the below link is an interesting one that people don't seem to know about, or maybe they don't care either I dont know!
[url]http://www.draiochtwebdesign.com/blog/photographers-sue-getty-for-copyright-infringement[/url] ([url]http://www.draiochtwebdesign.com/blog/photographers-sue-getty-for-copyright-infringement[/url])
Wow, thanks for the link HQ. Scary as he11 what Getty has been up to.
Hope the photographers win.
This sure comes as a big surprise , although I must say it was no doubt bound to happen.
Winning this case for the photographers would set a legal precedent for all stock photographers.
It can only do good for all contributors in general and would get all stock agencies to sit up and be a little less condescending .
Any stock photographer who does not follow this case needs to have his/her head checked as this will affect us all.
Hats off to you hqimages, and snaprender too.
-
Sorry here come another off topic comment...
Puravida, you sent me a private message asking me a question about something I said in this thread, but apparently you are the one person who has me set to ignore, so my reply to you is being blocked. ::)
-
Sorry here come another off topic comment...
Puravida, you sent me a private message asking me a question about something I said in this thread, but apparently you are the one person who has me set to ignore, so my reply to you is being blocked. ::)
Oops, sorry, I must have set the * in my email preference, which meant block all, instead of accept all. Silly me :D
-
snip
As I see it the only thing that will change Getty's mind is when the Photos.com+/JIU subscribers yell at them because there's a huge drop in available images. At that point I assume they'll rethink their commission grab and offer something more reasaonable. Talking isn't going to do squat at this point, IMO.
So, if you want change, opt out. If you take the money and opt in, then don't complain about the outcome.
I think they will lose customers and realise that they have made one mistake after another, particular in using bully tactics. the question is though, whether they will try and make it better with a better offer or try and fix it with more stupidity and do something worse like forced inclusion.
I opted out because it was a better deal through StockXpert, I remain opted out for the 1/5th of my images on istock, purely out of principle, delete my images you clearly dont want them.
-
I remain opted out also, but I get the feeling if there aren't enough people opting in for their customers on photo.com and jupitar - opting out wont be an option for long.
-
was sent a link to this thread by someone in my creative network trying to scare me to thinking this is the end of istockphoto. opt out or opt in, but please don't send mass mails about the partner program. (modified to remove harsh comment)
-
Your rude comments would be better directed to the person who actually sent you the message on a different site, rather than as a general rant at people who have no idea who the heck you are.
-
<deleted post, wrong thread, sorry>
-
whatalife, point taken, apologies. I don't usually post anything here. the sitemails should stop. why not just let people make up their own minds. and I modified my comment above.
-
I don't know anything about any sitemails. I suggest you report the offending spam senders to the appropriate site admins.
-
.
-
No, I was expecting the strong minded exclusives to form a coalition to migrate en masse out of exclusivity in protest to show their disapproval to Getty's heavy handedness. If that doesn't move Getty to retract their action, it would at least shift the power with a great number of strong portfolios being made available elsewhere.
Shaking the tree that buyers would move elsewhere too, but Getty knows none of these strong hearts would dare move a muscle like this. NATO.
If an exclusive is diamond, they would instantly half their revenue on the reduction in commission from 40% to 20% not to mind the any decrease due to placement. That would take a while to get back on the other sites.
Not saying it isn't a good idea just that its a drastic step
-
If you mean me, I am not happy about that and already made the same point up a bit further up in this thread. And in addition to the diamond there is a high level, prolific gold independent who also said she's opting in. Personally I think they are nuts.
I wouldn't worry too much about it. Once they actually get to see the pathetic dribbles of income they get from JIU/PC it will temper their enthusiasm somewhat.
You did well stirring the pot over there too __ it brought out quite a few more heartfelt comments regarding the situation.
Getty have sacrificed a staggering amount of contributor goodwill in this exercise which will probably end up generating very little money for either themselves or contributors.
I really can't imagine how JIU/PC subscribers are going to feel when 90% (literally!) of the entire library disappears overnight in 3 months time. Yes, they'll get a few more from IS, but even if 10% of IS images are transferred over (which I doubt) then the 3M images they've lost will be replaced by 500K older stock images that have been largely ignored by buyers up to now. I can see litigation being threatened if customers had subscribed specifically to access the 3M images that appeared to be on offer. It's going to look like a 'bait and switch' job to them.
Unfortunately it seems like 900 000 images are already opt in. Can't understand why so many contributors would opt in..
-
Well, I opted in, but just to delete from istock and send there some (not many) old, non-selling and boring files I was beggining to feel ashamed of. Those are files that can be sold at these prices; you get what you pay for. Not knowing what other people has done... but if many have deleted from IS to send to photos.com maybe we'll need to have another 5 milion image.
-
Well, I opted in, but just to delete from istock and send there some (not many) old, non-selling and boring files I was beggining to feel ashamed of. Those are files that can be sold at these prices; you get what you pay for. Not knowing what other people has done... but if many have deleted from IS to send to photos.com maybe we'll need to have another 5 milion image.
I also opted in and my philosophy is not to throw away 5 cents just because its not 50
-
I also opted in and my philosophy is not to throw away 5 cents just because its not 50
Interesting philosophy but you could be throwing away 50 just to get 5. For yourself and others.
-
Unfortunately it seems like 900 000 images are already opt in. Can't understand why so many contributors would opt in..
Same here. According to 'The Wayback Machine' IS only had about 2.5M files in Jan 2008 (the earliest date that exclusive images can be included) so that means that nearly half of all qualifying images must have been opted-in already. Surprising.
I've noticed that both JIU & PC have made some subtle changes to their advertising blurb recently. Instead of shouting about the 'over 3M images' available a few months ago it now just says 'millions'.
Considering that the entire point of this exercise was to give a major boost to JIU/PC then removing 3M images overnight (even if they are replaced by 1M others) is really going to annoy their existing customer base! They say it takes 10x more work to obtain a new customer than to keep an existing customer happy too. It's certainly going to be interesting to see how things pan out.
-
Unfortunately it seems like 900 000 images are already opt in. Can't understand why so many contributors would opt in..
We only have their word for that, and if true the I would suggest that a large percentage of them will have arrived there by the same route that no one reads the EULAs with software. For all the threads and discussions there have been it's mostly a case of preaching to the choir whilst the congregation is a garage sale.
-
I also opted in and my philosophy is not to throw away 5 cents just because its not 50
Interesting philosophy but you could be throwing away 50 just to get 5. For yourself and others.
I am not sure why I should be concerned for others? I would rather make a sale at 5c than someone else at 50c
-
I am not sure why I should be concerned for others? I would rather make a sale at 5c than someone else at 50c
Would you also rather that someone else makes 5c at the loss to yourself of 50c? If so you should be concerned for others.
If JIU/PC were to become successful then potentially it could devalue the entire market for all of us. In my view we should not be supporting them with our content.
Based on the experience of those that have been selling there for several months you'll probably only make about $20 per month per 1000 images you send them. Is that worth the potential loss of sales from IS that could result?
-
I am not sure why I should be concerned for others? I would rather make a sale at 5c than someone else at 50c
Would you also rather that someone else makes 5c at the loss to yourself of 50c? If so you should be concerned for others.
If JIU/PC were to become successful then potentially it could devalue the entire market for all of us. In my view we should not be supporting them with our content.
Based on the experience of those that have been selling there for several months you'll probably only make about $20 per month per 1000 images you send them. Is that worth the potential loss of sales from IS that could result?
a) No, that wouldn't be in my self interest and lets not kid ourselves that we are doing this for the common good.
b) If the market is to be devalued then if its not JIU/PC then it will be someone else, Flickr or Wikimedia Mayflower or another site
c) I will wait and see, here on MSG you will find different opinions on all the sites some IS is 10th place for some first
And alot of the arguments you make were probably leveled by macro photographers at microstock in the past ....
-
Seems to me that the market is stratifying into different price points. Jonathan Ross' interesting presentation brought this home. Instead of being concerned about some images going down to a lower price point, perhaps photographers should concentrate on ensuring that their best work is marketed at a higher price point. I guess for istock exclusives that means RM.
-
According to my crystal balls:
$1 / picture PAYG or a sub is going to be the norm for most microstock. 25% will be the typical royalty. Back to microstock. Most pictures will be used online.
$1 and subs will be for the sort of pictures which are of the stuff we find out for a walk or around the house. And pictures of smiling family members and friends being models. And for yet another business group shot. Those markets are flooded. $1 was always about right. Some photographers will still do well off it on volume.
Higher prices will be for much more individual and difficult to achieve. Perfectly executed. Very stylish. One big $ growth area will be stuff which perfectly combines photography and CG rendering.
+++ I thunk this talk of devaluing the market .. misses the point. It's about anticipating where the market will go and preparing for it. The agencies are probably all pretty much trying to predict what is inevitable. Not what is maybe. The biggest change they look out for is that something comes along which means no more agencies. Some other model.
-
And alot of the arguments you make were probably leveled by macro photographers at microstock in the past ....
Yes __ I was actually concious of that as I was writing them! Having said that it is not mandatory for turkeys to vote for Christmas.
Just out of interest what would you consider to be a success or failure (from your own point of view) regarding the JIU/PC venture? If the the images you sent there turned out to earn the anticipated $20 per month per 1000 images would that be worth it? What if your IS income dropped by 10% at the same time?
-
b) If the market is to be devalued then if its not JIU/PC then it will be someone else, Flickr or Wikimedia Mayflower or another site
No one is making you devalue your work, you are choosing to do so.
-
My reason for not opting in anything via Istock (although I am opted in via StockXpert) is a lot simpler than devalueing the market or such.
The simple truth is: The customers at photos.com and JIU will pay the same money as now in the future for their subscriptions. Only Getty wants to pay us less - 25 cents instead of 30 cents.
It is not market demands or trends that force them to cut commissions. It is pure greed. "We want more of your money, that's why we replace one distribution channel by another".
Why should I support this?
It may look different for an Istock exclusive, but as an independent contributor this is nothing than a pay cut dictated by Getty.
And I am not willing to accept that. I rather not sell via photos.com and JIU and hope that their customers will go to other venues (Shutter, DT, FT) where I get paid better.
-
And alot of the arguments you make were probably leveled by macro photographers at microstock in the past ....
Yes __ I was actually concious of that as I was writing them! Having said that it is not mandatory for turkeys to vote for Christmas.
Just out of interest what would you consider to be a success or failure (from your own point of view) regarding the JIU/PC venture? If the the images you sent there turned out to earn the anticipated $20 per month per 1000 images would that be worth it? What if your IS income dropped by 10% at the same time?
And I admire you for admitting it!
I would be disappointed with $20 per 1000 images but its likely that my IS income will drop whether I participate or not, so if its even one sub dl I'd rather have it.
-
b) If the market is to be devalued then if its not JIU/PC then it will be someone else, Flickr or Wikimedia Mayflower or another site
No one is making you devalue your work, you are choosing to do so.
The market sets the value not me
If a similar picture is free to download on Mayflower then mine is a hardsell at $5
-
So this acquisition was basically eliminating a competition. They just took only distributing channels while they were not interested in another microsite.
Exactly and further consolidation is likely
-
The market sets the value not me
Maybe you don't see this, but you are a part of the market.
The market consists of buyers AND sellers.
-
The market sets the value not me
Maybe you don't see this, but you are a part of the market.
The market consists of buyers AND sellers.
I do realise that sellers are a part of the market but I don't have pricing power because my images are nothing special ..
-
I am not sure why I should be concerned for others? I would rather make a sale at 5c than someone else at 50c
Would you also rather that someone else makes 5c at the loss to yourself of 50c? If so you should be concerned for others.
If JIU/PC were to become successful then potentially it could devalue the entire market for all of us. In my view we should not be supporting them with our content.
Based on the experience of those that have been selling there for several months you'll probably only make about $20 per month per 1000 images you send them. Is that worth the potential loss of sales from IS that could result?
a) No, that wouldn't be in my self interest and lets not kid ourselves that we are doing this for the common good.
b) If the market is to be devalued then if its not JIU/PC then it will be someone else, Flickr or Wikimedia Mayflower or another site
c) I will wait and see, here on MSG you will find different opinions on all the sites some IS is 10th place for some first
And alot of the arguments you make were probably leveled by macro photographers at microstock in the past ....
Using the same arguments as the macrostock photographers are using against microstock does not necessarily make gostwyck's arguments wrong. There should be a price point where you can make maximum profit on your images. So I am pretty sure you would not want to offer your images for a cent/dl, or am I mistaken?
But that is not the main problem I believe which many contributors have with sending images to JIU and Photos.com. It is that Getty lowers the commission for us contributors. Both exclusive and independent. Most obviously seen, when the announcement came, that StockXpert contributors cannot offer the images anymore through StockXpert but should do so through iStockphoto. But this is also the case for exclusives. For on Demand sales you will just receive 20% commission.
-
I am not sure why I should be concerned for others? I would rather make a sale at 5c than someone else at 50c
Would you also rather that someone else makes 5c at the loss to yourself of 50c? If so you should be concerned for others.
If JIU/PC were to become successful then potentially it could devalue the entire market for all of us. In my view we should not be supporting them with our content.
Based on the experience of those that have been selling there for several months you'll probably only make about $20 per month per 1000 images you send them. Is that worth the potential loss of sales from IS that could result?
a) No, that wouldn't be in my self interest and lets not kid ourselves that we are doing this for the common good.
b) If the market is to be devalued then if its not JIU/PC then it will be someone else, Flickr or Wikimedia Mayflower or another site
c) I will wait and see, here on MSG you will find different opinions on all the sites some IS is 10th place for some first
And alot of the arguments you make were probably leveled by macro photographers at microstock in the past ....
Using the same arguments as the macrostock photographers are using against microstock does not necessarily make gostwyck's arguments wrong. There should be a price point where you can make maximum profit on your images. So I am pretty sure you would not want to offer your images for a cent/dl, or am I mistaken?
But that is not the main problem I believe which many contributors have with sending images to JIU and Photos.com. It is that Getty lowers the commission for us contributors. Both exclusive and independent. Most obviously seen, when the announcement came, that StockXpert contributors cannot offer the images anymore through StockXpert but should do so through iStockphoto. But this is also the case for exclusives. For on Demand sales you will just receive 20% commission.
"So I am pretty sure you would not want to offer your images for a cent/dl, or am I mistaken?"
You're mistaken! Plenty of photographers will sell for one cent a download, in fact, plenty of photographers will GIVE away their photos.. (sxc.hu, free dreamstime images, free istock images, but dreamstime have built a whole web site around theirs!)
You can't blame the photographer, blame the agent, the agent should never have deserted the pay-as-you-go business model, they are to blame!!
-
Think of it this way, you work in an office doing filing/general admin. You make 15 euro an hour which is standard for your job. A polish lady gets a job in the same office doing the same job, but for 8 euro an hour. She thinks this is great money because she doesn't have perfect English and she feels she doesn't know the job yet. Your boss arrives and points out that she is working for less, and THAT YOU SHOULD BE TOO!
The only solution is to fight for her to get a fair wage, or in microstock's case, fight for pay-per-download as opposed to subs, because subs will kill everyone in the end.. it's not anyone else's fault that they are willing to work for pennies, it is the agencies fault for not giving EVERYONE a fair/good return..
-
.. it's not anyone else's fault that they are willing to work for pennies, it is the agencies fault for not giving EVERYONE a fair/good return..
The agencies can only sell our work at the price we agree to by submitting our images. No company is going to unilaterally decide to pay their suppliers more than they are asking. Of course it is our fault if we will work for pennies... if that’s what we are asking for that’s what we will get.
-
No company is going to unilaterally decide to pay their suppliers more than they are asking.
Well, that's not entirely true. How else do you explain Shutterstock's increasing royalties several times over its history? Jon looked at his business, decided that he could raise prices and, once he felt he understood how that affected customers' downloading behavior, increased payouts. Seems to me I was getting .20 per download when I started there. Now I get .36. If that isn't a company deciding unilaterally to pay its suppliers more, what is?
Of course, a combination of a down economy and more aggressive competition may entice companies to move in the opposite direction. I hope not, but won't be surprised.
-
using SS as an example of a site that treats its contributors well is a first. the economy is beginning to rebound, slowly but surely. the recession is temporary and would not be used as a springboard into deflective or reactive restructuring of business models that worked before the recession.
-
A first? Am I really the only one here who has and continues to have a positive business relationship with Shutterstock? I suspect that's not true. Shutterstock makes me money; they're only a little behind iStock in overall income, with a lot fewer hassles. They are much more accepting of my work, generally rejecting only based on technical quality and letting the customer decide what's stockworthy. Their upload process is quick and easy. Aside from the recent explosion over tax withholding, which doesn't affect me, I can't think of a situation where their communication with contributors was anything but professional and well reasoned.
I'm appreciative of the efforts of most of the micros, at least those that make me money. But yeah, I'd say Shutterstock is an excellent example of a site that treats its contributors well. More, I'd describe it as a business that treats its suppliers well, whatever the industry.
-
Photos.com will be hoping to obliterate Shutterstock, and anyone opting in, is helping that process..
-
Well, that's not entirely true. How else do you explain Shutterstock's increasing royalties several times over its history? Jon looked at his business, decided that he could raise prices and, once he felt he understood how that affected customers' downloading behavior, increased payouts. Seems to me I was getting .20 per download when I started there. Now I get .36. If that isn't a company deciding unilaterally to pay its suppliers more, what is?
Of course, a combination of a down economy and more aggressive competition may entice companies to move in the opposite direction. I hope not, but won't be surprised.
So SS pays you .36 and you think it's manna dropping from heaven?
did I misread something you wrote or is that what you're cheering SS so valiantly? (confused)
-
Well, that's not entirely true. How else do you explain Shutterstock's increasing royalties several times over its history? Jon looked at his business, decided that he could raise prices and, once he felt he understood how that affected customers' downloading behavior, increased payouts. Seems to me I was getting .20 per download when I started there. Now I get .36. If that isn't a company deciding unilaterally to pay its suppliers more, what is?
Of course, a combination of a down economy and more aggressive competition may entice companies to move in the opposite direction. I hope not, but won't be surprised.
So SS pays you .36 and you think it's manna dropping from heaven?
did I misread something you wrote or is that what you're cheering SS so valiantly? (confused)
lol, 36 cents is 16 cents raise ! Wow, now you can afford a teaspoon of Guinness ;D
-
What they pay per download doesn't matter nearly as much to me as how much I make. iStock pays more on average per download, but they both bring in about the same amount per month. Fotolia generates about half of that, and everybody else produces less. What they pay for a sale only matters if I get sales.
Would I like to be paid more? Certainly. Am I grateful for what they pay me? No. It's a business relationship, and one that has to be mutually beneficial. They aren't a charity, and neither am I. Gratitude doesn't enter into it, except from not feeling like I'm being taken advantage of.
In any event, I defend Shutterstock because I see it being attacked and because I judge those attacks to be unfair. Or should only those with a gripe be given a voice here?
-
A first? Am I really the only one here who has and continues to have a positive business relationship with Shutterstock? I suspect that's not true. Shutterstock makes me money; they're only a little behind iStock in overall income, with a lot fewer hassles. They are much more accepting of my work, generally rejecting only based on technical quality and letting the customer decide what's stockworthy. Their upload process is quick and easy. Aside from the recent explosion over tax withholding, which doesn't affect me, I can't think of a situation where their communication with contributors was anything but professional and well reasoned.
I'm appreciative of the efforts of most of the micros, at least those that make me money. But yeah, I'd say Shutterstock is an excellent example of a site that treats its contributors well. More, I'd describe it as a business that treats its suppliers well, whatever the industry.
No, you're not the only one. That's a very good summary of Shutterstock. They are an excellent agency.
-
A first? Am I really the only one here who has and continues to have a positive business relationship with Shutterstock? I suspect that's not true. Shutterstock makes me money; they're only a little behind iStock in overall income, with a lot fewer hassles. They are much more accepting of my work, generally rejecting only based on technical quality and letting the customer decide what's stockworthy. Their upload process is quick and easy. Aside from the recent explosion over tax withholding, which doesn't affect me, I can't think of a situation where their communication with contributors was anything but professional and well reasoned.
I'm appreciative of the efforts of most of the micros, at least those that make me money. But yeah, I'd say Shutterstock is an excellent example of a site that treats its contributors well. More, I'd describe it as a business that treats its suppliers well, whatever the industry.
No, you are not alone. This expresses my feelings about - and business relationship with - Shutterstock perfectly. Well said :)
-
A first? Am I really the only one here who has and continues to have a positive business relationship with Shutterstock? (snip)
No, you are not alone. This expresses my feelings about - and business relationship with - Shutterstock perfectly. Well said :)
I think Shutterstock has always been very straight in its dealings with contributors (my experience with them from October 2004 - August 2008). I absolutely think that their success is why all the other PPD sites are interested in subs, although I expect that pressure from buyers is the other big factor.
My only quarrel with SS is the long term effects of the subscription model, which I don't think are good for contributors even though on a short term basis SS was always #1 or #2 in the monthly earnings race. So I agree that monthly earnings are the important measure - not some big percentage of close to $0 - but it should be sustainable monthly earnings over time, not just a short term view.
-
Won't be much difference between the amount paid by IS for pictures sold at Photos.com and Shutterstock for anyone who is unable to claim back the US 30%.
-
my post was not clear. the grumbling in these threads about IS, stockxpert and the partner program has an overall message that sub models kill microstock. then to see the SS business model being held up as a shining example seems hypocritical.
how can you condemn Getty or IS or whoever is in charge at IS for trying to break into and compete with SS in the sub arena, and in the same breath hold SS up for doing precisely the same thing. building volume sales for contributors at the expense of price per unit and allowing for the devaluation of work?
-
Yes, I have to agree with hawk_eye.
Sweet change of face. Suddenly Shutterstock is the sweet darling and saviour of the month, which used to be Istock. All saying how lovely your relationship is with them.
But am I mistaken or what, to have read that it was Shutterstock which started the subscription model. Had they not introduced this pay us peanuts great idea, we would not be screaming hell and high water over what Getty is doing to us at IStock and Stockxpert. Or has everyone forgotten about that?
Sure you look at your paycheck and think oh wow, nice bossy gave me a fat check every month. But nice bossy was also the stinker who got you to accept a reduction of commission per download for the whole business.
Or did you all just contracted amnesia?
-
how can you condemn Getty or IS or whoever is in charge at IS for trying to break into and compete with SS in the sub arena, and in the same breath hold SS up for doing precisely the same thing. building volume sales for contributors at the expense of price per unit and allowing for the devaluation of work?
I can't speak for anyone else, but for me the fact that SS pays me .38/sale for subs vs. .25 being offered by Getty. That .13 makes a massive difference when you are talking about volume sales. Not to mention SS has never LOWERED my commission, unlike what Getty is doing to both exclusives and non with this "partner" program.
The rest is hard to quantify - SS doesn't have site outages for hours or days that result in lost income. I can't remember them ever having programming bugs. I never had to disambiguate anything there. They never changed the payout terms on me, etc. Bottom line is (and I am just repeating what has been said before numerous times, including in this thread) they are hassle free. No drama at Shutterstock.
When you are contributing to 8 sites or so, you really do appreciate the ones that just do what they promised and aren't always trying to put something over on you.
-
my post was not clear. the grumbling in these threads about IS, stockxpert and the partner program has an overall message that sub models kill microstock. then to see the SS business model being held up as a shining example seems hypocritical.
how can you condemn Getty or IS or whoever is in charge at IS for trying to break into and compete with SS in the sub arena, and in the same breath hold SS up for doing precisely the same thing. building volume sales for contributors at the expense of price per unit and allowing for the devaluation of work?
Yes, I have to agree with hawk_eye.
Sweet change of face. Suddenly Shutterstock is the sweet darling and saviour of the month, which used to be Istock. All saying how lovely your relationship is with them.
But am I mistaken or what, to have read that it was Shutterstock which started the subscription model. Had they not introduced this pay us peanuts great idea, we would not be screaming hell and high water over what Getty is doing to us at IStock and Stockxpert. Or has everyone forgotten about that?
Sure you look at your paycheck and think oh wow, nice bossy gave me a fat check every month. But nice bossy was also the stinker who got you to accept a reduction of commission per download for the whole business.
Or did you all just contracted amnesia?
Once again, thanks puravida for setting the story straight. I don't know the history of SS, so after reading what you said and hawkeye, I wikied to learn more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutterstock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutterstock)
Good point both, if not for the great honourable founder of subs we would not be banting on this. They did set the model for getting all of us to be paid peanuts, as you put it.
-
But am I mistaken or what, to have read that it was Shutterstock which started the subscription model. Had they not introduced this pay us peanuts great idea, we would not be screaming hell and high water over what Getty is doing to us at IStock and Stockxpert. Or has everyone forgotten about that?
Sure you look at your paycheck and think oh wow, nice bossy gave me a fat check every month. But nice bossy was also the stinker who got you to accept a reduction of commission per download for the whole business.
Or did you all just contracted amnesia?
Sorry Puravida, but my microstock memory goes back quite a bit further than yours. When microstock started as a paying business, istock was paying .05/sale. By 2005 when I joined istock and SS, istock was paying .10, .20, and .30. SS was paying .20/sub sale. So the prices were very comparable between PAYG and Subs. And while IS has had price increases that have resulted in higher royalties, they have never actually given us a raise in royalty %. SS gave me a raise every single year until this one, which is understandable considering the economy.
Lets also consider that Getty has been changing terms on its contributors. That is what that lawsuit is about and that is what is happening to istock contributors. It appears Getty takes any means to weasel out of it's contracts with its suppliers. OTOH Shutterstock has always been very up front with suppliers and to my knowledge they have honored every contract they have had with me.
I can't really see how any knowledgeable person can see SS as the villain here.
I don't blame hawk eye for not understanding this if he/she has never submitted there, but I have to say, Puravida/Perseus, I have no idea where you are coming from on this. What's your beef with Shutterstock?
-
Lisafx - I agree on price point. the $ offer should be better at IS, especially for independents. but if we don't nickel and dime and instead look at the big picture, the overall message seems to be that the sub model is fine as long as IS doesn't go near it. I doubt Getty is trying to turn PAYG sales into sub sales. instead, they seem to be looking for a competitive edge against SS. SS also requires constant uploading. photos.com won't require constant uploading as far as we know. so if you take the little bit extra you're getting from SS, and divide that across the hours of extra work you put into uploading fresh meat to SS...those extra pennies start to matter less. I don't think SS is a villain. I think they are brilliant. but I'm surprised to see them held up as an example when Getty/IS are being torn apart for screwing contributors. you're right though, I haven't worked with SS.
-
so if you take the little bit extra you're getting from SS, and divide that across the hours of extra work you put into uploading fresh meat to SS...those extra pennies start to matter less.
"little bit extra"??! I make quite a bit more than a "little bit extra" on SS. Believe me. They have the volume.
And I upload the same images to all sites. I don't work any harder for SS than any other site.
You are free to speculate about any site you want, but my opinion is not based on speculation. Rather it is based on objective experience.
-
I am sorry I do not go farther back to find out it was IS who started * us in. That still does not absolve SS . My beef with SS is no different from my beef with IS , unchanged. The fact that if SS , or IS, did not succeed with subs, we would not be hear getting shafted .
-
Lets also consider that Getty has been changing terms on its contributors. That is what that lawsuit is about and that is what is happening to istock contributors. It appears Getty takes any means to weasel out of it's contracts with its suppliers.
And don't forget the recent letter that PumpAudio (now Getty owned) contributors received that said their commission was being reduced from 50% to 35% so Getty could beef up sales and marketing. They clearly are out to cut their costs wherever they can.
What I cannot fathom is how 900,000 images from IS could be going to Photos.com+/JIU. Perhaps there's some big chunk of wholly owned content (The Hulton Archive is just over 14,000 images but perhaps there are others like that?)
-
I wouldn't debate SS experience with you. you're one of the voices in here that is always calm and professional. no doubt you are right. the point of my post is that there seems to be some hypocrisy from other posters going on. Getty is no more a bad guy than any of the other agencies. They will all protect their bottom lines. Fotolia is growing, at the expense of its contributor commissions. Only difference is that they state it right out. instead of doing it back door.
-
b) If the market is to be devalued then if its not JIU/PC then it will be someone else, Flickr or Wikimedia Mayflower or another site
c) I will wait and see, here on MSG you will find different opinions on all the sites some IS is 10th place for some first
And alot of the arguments you make were probably leveled by macro photographers at microstock in the past ....
The bad thing is that it was still possible to create stock imagery with micro prices. Macro was too expensive for many young business and also under evaluated the availability of commercial quality images toward the last years when microstock started.
Now it's not possible at all to continu creating new images at 5 cents per images. IMO
-
b) If the market is to be devalued then if its not JIU/PC then it will be someone else, Flickr or Wikimedia Mayflower or another site
c) I will wait and see, here on MSG you will find different opinions on all the sites some IS is 10th place for some first
And alot of the arguments you make were probably leveled by macro photographers at microstock in the past ....
The bad thing is that it was still possible to create stock imagery with micro prices. Macro was too expensive for many young business and also under evaluated the availability of commercial quality images toward the last years when microstock started.
Now it's not possible at all to continu creating new images at 5 cents per images. IMO
but 35 cents is ? you must be kidding!
-
SS also requires constant uploading.
Another ridiculous myth being perpetuated once again. You only need 'constant uploading' if few of your images ever become regular-sellers and don't appear within the first 100 or so of a search. I do a lot of travelling and it makes relatively little difference to my income if I take a couple of months off or upload 100 in a month.
photos.com won't require constant uploading as far as we know.
As we already know sales are so poor there that unless you are uploading at the rate of 1000 images a month (for about an extra $20) you wouldn't notice any difference anyway.
... you're right though, I haven't worked with SS.
That's pretty obvious from what you write.
Another myth __ SS didn't actually 'invent' the subscription model either. There were several agencies, including SS themselves, that had been offering subscriptions for years but always with wholly-owned content. Jon's genius was to open the doors of a subscription agency to outside contributors for the first time. At the time he had 15K of his own images and had been trying to compete against other agencies with 200K images. The rest is history ...
-
SS also requires constant uploading.
Another ridiculous myth being perpetuated once again. You only need 'constant uploading' if few of your images ever become regular-sellers and don't appear within the first 100 or so of a search. I do a lot of travelling and it makes relatively little difference to my income if I take a couple of months off or upload 100 in a month.
photos.com won't require constant uploading as far as we know.
As we already know sales are so poor there that unless you are uploading at the rate of 1000 images a month (for about an extra $20) you wouldn't notice any difference anyway.
... you're right though, I haven't worked with SS.
That's pretty obvious from what you write.
Another myth __ SS didn't actually 'invent' the subscription model either. There were several agencies, including SS themselves, that had been offering subscriptions for years but always with wholly-owned content. Jon's genius was to open the doors of a subscription agency to outside contributors for the first time. At the time he had 15K of his own images and had been trying to compete against other agencies with 200K images. The rest is history ...
gostwyck, you may say all this is a myth, but the motto "feed the beast" did not just pop out of thin air here at this forum.
You also don't have to be with SS to know what you're saying. Many SS contributors voice their displeasure here, so hawk_eye not having worked with SS does not make it "obvious" that he does not know what he is saying, just like the perception that only you know what you're saying.
-
.38/sale for subs vs. .25 being offered by Getty.
0.38 - 30% for the US IRS = 0.266
So not much in it for me as I am not able to claim back or offset 30% US withholding taxes.
-
.38/sale for subs vs. .25 being offered by Getty.
0.38 - 30% for the US IRS = 0.266
So not much in it for me as I am not able to claim back or offset 30% US withholding taxes.
This doesn't apply to me. I am in the US.
But yeah, I can definitely see how that would weigh in the decisions of contributors from other countries.
-
don't think I need experience at SS to ask why some of you are angry about subs/partner venture at istock, but in the same thread you are happy with the SS model? why you would be cool with SS if you're so concerned about devaluing your work overall in microstock? Lisafx - if the income per sale offered was higher, would you opt in? is the business model the problem or the royalty percentage out of curiousity.
-
b) If the market is to be devalued then if its not JIU/PC then it will be someone else, Flickr or Wikimedia Mayflower or another site
c) I will wait and see, here on MSG you will find different opinions on all the sites some IS is 10th place for some first
And alot of the arguments you make were probably leveled by macro photographers at microstock in the past ....
The bad thing is that it was still possible to create stock imagery with micro prices. Macro was too expensive for many young business and also under evaluated the availability of commercial quality images toward the last years when microstock started.
Now it's not possible at all to continu creating new images at 5 cents per images. IMO
but 35 cents is ? you must be kidding!
Where . please I said something about subscriptions ?? Microstock prices are 5% to 10% of what macro was so around 10$ to 20$ each full size images...
-
Lisafx - if the income per sale offered was higher, would you opt in? is the business model the problem or the royalty percentage out of curiousity.
If I was getting the same .30 through istock that I am/was getting through StockXpert I would be opting in to the istock deal as it currently stands.
-
Lisafx - if the income per sale offered was higher, would you opt in? is the business model the problem or the royalty percentage out of curiousity.
If I was getting the same .30 through istock that I am/was getting through StockXpert I would be opting in to the istock deal as it currently stands.
What about if they make the site very successful? Will you not feel as if you are missing out?
-
Lisafx - if the income per sale offered was higher, would you opt in? is the business model the problem or the royalty percentage out of curiousity.
If I was getting the same .30 through istock that I am/was getting through StockXpert I would be opting in to the istock deal as it currently stands.
What about if they make the site very successful? Will you not feel as if you are missing out?
Sorry, that is just way to speculative for me, particularly with my crystal ball on the fritz. ;)
Right now I can only make decisions based on the facts I have available.
-
Personally I think Photos.com is currently totally over rated. Unless Getty can change the situation drastically, Photos.com is currently nothing more than another small subscription site. Based on my earning from my approximately 1300 images on Photo.com (via StockXpert) and the same images on SS I have earned there less than 2% of my earnings from SS. If they were an independent site to which I had to submit directly I would probably have stopped uploading there a long time ago.
I don't understand why first Jupiter Images and now Getty are going bananas over Photos.com. First JI risked damage to StockXpert by forcing Photos.com down their throat and now Getty is doing the same to IS. If Photos.com was one of the big 5 sites I can understand it, but they are not. Compare the Alexa traffic of Photos.com with that of SS and you will see they are not comparable.
I have opted out of the IS deal. To me this whole issue is more one of principle with Getty trying to lower our earnings. The loss of revenue is really of no significance to me. To all the IS exclusives that are opting in. Don't keep you hopes too high for a huge additional income. It is not going to happen anytime soon.
-
Personally I think Photos.com is currently totally over rated. Unless Getty can change the situation drastically, Photos.com is currently nothing more than another small subscription site. Based on my earning from my approximately 1300 images on Photo.com (via StockXpert) and the same images on SS I have earned there less than 2% of my earnings from SS. If they were an independent site to which I had to submit directly I would probably have stopped uploading there a long time ago.
I don't understand why first Jupiter Images and now Getty are going bananas over Photos.com. First JI risked damage to StockXpert by forcing Photos.com down their throat and now Getty is doing the same to IS. If Photos.com was one of the big 5 sites I can understand it, but they are not. Compare the Alexa traffic of Photos.com with that of SS and you will see they are not comparable.
I have opted out of the IS deal. To me this whole issue is more one of principle with Getty trying to lower our earnings. The loss of revenue is really of no significance to me. To all the IS exclusives that are opting in. Don't keep you hopes too high for a huge additional income. It is not going to happen anytime soon.
I agree at present income levels similar to crestock etc, I dont see that changing real soon. I think the problem is it that they have a great domain name and want to maximise its value and do so quickly for instant gratification of stockholders etc. Unfortunately at this stage it seems cursed :) by one poor management decision after another by JI then Getty. Personally it would have a great name to start a midstock collection of istock premium and cheaper getty, or just point it at istock or one of the getty brands.
-
Personally I think Photos.com is currently totally over rated. Unless Getty can change the situation drastically, Photos.com is currently nothing more than another small subscription site. Based on my earning from my approximately 1300 images on Photo.com (via StockXpert) and the same images on SS I have earned there less than 2% of my earnings from SS. If they were an independent site to which I had to submit directly I would probably have stopped uploading there a long time ago.
I don't understand why first Jupiter Images and now Getty are going bananas over Photos.com. First JI risked damage to StockXpert by forcing Photos.com down their throat and now Getty is doing the same to IS. If Photos.com was one of the big 5 sites I can understand it, but they are not. Compare the Alexa traffic of Photos.com with that of SS and you will see they are not comparable.
I have opted out of the IS deal. To me this whole issue is more one of principle with Getty trying to lower our earnings. The loss of revenue is really of no significance to me. To all the IS exclusives that are opting in. Don't keep you hopes too high for a huge additional income. It is not going to happen anytime soon.
I agree at present income levels similar to crestock etc, I dont see that changing real soon. I think the problem is it that they have a great domain name and want to maximise its value and do so quickly for instant gratification of stockholders etc. Unfortunately at this stage it seems cursed :) by one poor management decision after another by JI then Getty. Personally it would have a great name to start a midstock collection of istock premium and cheaper getty, or just point it at istock or one of the getty brands.
Yes, as in the other stock market , ie. the REAL Stock Market, perception plays a lot in the success and failure of an organization. There is also other boardroom motivation to the buyers that may or may not benefit the contributors. Acquisitions of a company is not just for the sake of pleasing distributors , the bottom line is to make money in the shortest time, then sell it again before they lose market value. Anyone who thinks these big players are interested in long term relationship is living in the past or still wet behind their ears .
-
Just got back from 2 weeks away to find this. I wont opt in to istock for 25 cents and hope more buyers go to SS, where they will be able to find bigger portfolios from most of the non-exclusive contributors and we can get higher commissions. I was starting to like istock again but this makes me wary of them again.
-
Just got back from 2 weeks away to find this. I wont opt in to istock for 25 cents and hope more buyers go to SS, where they will be able to find bigger portfolios from most of the non-exclusive contributors and we can get higher commissions. I was starting to like istock again but this makes me wary of them again.
Check out the reactions to the Vetta roll-out from buyers (if you can unearth them in the 51 page thread). They appear pretty wary too.
-
1. I was naive
2. I was duped
3. Mike Slonecker was right, possibly about everything (oldies might understand that, but the StockXpert crew will for sure)
Wow... I remember Mike Slonecker!! HA.
Who is Mike Slonecker? What did he said?
-
I dont understand the problem buyers saying they will leave etc. about 50000 images of how many million are more expensive? noone is being forced to pay the extra, pick out a cheaper image if its a problem.
-
I have everyday sales at StockXpert, mostly from Photos.com and Jupiter images.
-
Hi there - minimun payouts
IS - 100
DT- 100
FT- 50
StockXpert - 50
BIG - 30
123 - 50 (pays automatically month aferwards when accrued balance is over this amount)
SS - not sure off the top of my head, think it's 50
CAN - 50
CRE - 50
Rgds
Oldhand
-
how about this:
For non-exclusive photografer at IS better keep sell to Photos.com/JIU from StockXpert because many non-exclusive photographer have more photos online at stockxpert than IS.
Mine 3000's photos at StockXpert vs 300's at IS, the chance to sell photos is better at StockXpert than IS.
Can some one make polls for this? and send it to StockXpert management.
-
how about this:
For non-exclusive photografer at IS better keep sell to Photos.com/JIU from StockXpert because many non-exclusive photographer have more photos online at stockxpert than IS.
Mine 3000's photos at StockXpert vs 300's at IS, the chance to sell photos is better at StockXpert than IS.
Can some one make polls for this? and send it to StockXpert management.
StockXpert had more images from most non-exclusives and we were able to sell new images, unless I have missed something, they have to be over 18 months old to be put on photos.com from IS.
I don't think a poll will change things, just let all the subs buyers know that they can get new images from shutterstock.
-
StockXpert had more images from most non-exclusives and we were able to sell new images, unless I have missed something, they have to be over 18 months old to be put on photos.com from IS.
If I remember it correctly, this limitation (18 months) is only valid for IS exclusive members to assure that new exclusive content is available at IS only for that period. Non-exclusives should be able to send all their current uploads to both places as well.
-
So all istock have to do is raise their commissions 20% for non exclusives (from 25 cents to 30 cents) and I am sure lots of us will opt in. There is no way I will take a cut to 25 cents when SS pays me 38 cents, the subs buyers can find my portfolio there. Photos.com and JIU unlimited were never big earners and I have stopped uploading to sites like crestock that only pay 25 cents for subs. I was looking for an increase in subs commissions, as they already seem low in comparison to pay per download.
-
Just got back from 2 weeks away to find this. I wont opt in to istock for 25 cents and hope more buyers go to SS, where they will be able to find bigger portfolios from most of the non-exclusive contributors and we can get higher commissions. I was starting to like istock again but this makes me wary of them again.
Check out the reactions to the Vetta roll-out from buyers (if you can unearth them in the 51 page thread). They appear pretty wary too.
I am confused here. As I wrote in another thread (first sale on Vetta), can someone explain to me why there is mixed signals here on IStock?On one hand, I read here that Getty is pissing off contributors and buyers, and on the other hand, I just read someone cheering for his sales with Vetta. 15,50$US is hot ! not the 30 cents we expected from Getty's new monopoly of IS and StockXpert.
So what is the real story? Can someone tell me?
Cheers,
matt
-
Tan, it's like being in an abusive marriage. You really really want them to love you becasue they are the true GOD of microstock. Sometimes you get mad at him and threaten to leave, but the truth is that IS is such a great lover 20% of the time that you put up with the neglect. My acceptance rate is brutal, but I earn between $1.25 and $1.60 per photo per month so earnings equal or beat sites with 5x the gallery.
As God the power has gone to IS's head and they think they can walk all over their harem, but the JI/Photos.com deal sucks much worse than 20% and they made the mistake of optional opt-in. I have seen how many sales I got through this deal at StockXpert, it wasn't spectacular - now fighting against IS exclusives for attention and the insulting commission. I would be betraying SS and DT if I accepted this bad deal.
-
Tan, it's like being in an abusive marriage. You really really want them to love you becasue they are the true GOD of microstock. Sometimes you get mad at him and threaten to leave, but the truth is that IS is such a great lover 20% of the time that you put up with the neglect.
Pixart, you read my mind. I have thought the same myself many times!
I can't afford to leave them, but I have taken a few other lovers ;)
-
Tan, consider these two programs from the POV of iStock exclusives vs. independents. To an exclusive, Vetta offers a chance for increased revenues if one or more of their photos is selected. And the Photos.com & JIU subscription plans offer the chance for a little more income, which you can choose to accept or reject based on your feeling about low revenue per sale.
That's if you're exclusive. But if you're independent, Vetta is irrelevant (only exclusive content). And has been discussed, P.c and JIU represent a loss of income, both because the revenue per sale is less than we get through SX now and because the pool of images will be much smaller due to iStock's restrictive upload policy.
So the upshot is that independents lose on one program and have no stake in the other. I'll leave it to exclusives to decide how they feel, but would point out that it's not unreasonable to dislike iStock's use of the stick even as you appreciate the occasional carrot.
-
thx Pixart, thx disorderly, for the clarification. Now I get it: Getty's out to appease the exclusives. Well, in a way I guess that's fair , if you're exclusive.
I am looking out for the possibility to be exclusive one day in the future , choosing from the sites I am with,(no, not with IS though...)
but if I became exclusive for Fotolia, or another Big6, or even a mid stock,etc...
I too would expect some kind of special treatment. So I guess I can't knock Getty for doing more for their exclusives. Cheers once more for taking the time to answer me.
matt
-
Tan, it's like being in an abusive marriage. You really really want them to love you becasue they are the true GOD of microstock. Sometimes you get mad at him and threaten to leave, but the truth is that IS is such a great lover 20% of the time that you put up with the neglect. My acceptance rate is brutal, but I earn between $1.25 and $1.60 per photo per month so earnings equal or beat sites with 5x the gallery.
As God the power has gone to IS's head and they think they can walk all over their harem, but the JI/Photos.com deal sucks much worse than 20% and they made the mistake of optional opt-in. I have seen how many sales I got through this deal at StockXpert, it wasn't spectacular - now fighting against IS exclusives for attention and the insulting commission. I would be betraying SS and DT if I accepted this bad deal.
what a wonderful analogy :) :)
-
Tan, it's like being in an abusive marriage. You really really want them to love you becasue they are the true GOD of microstock. Sometimes you get mad at him and threaten to leave, but the truth is that IS is such a great lover 20% of the time that you put up with the neglect. My acceptance rate is brutal, but I earn between $1.25 and $1.60 per photo per month so earnings equal or beat sites with 5x the gallery.
As God the power has gone to IS's head and they think they can walk all over their harem, but the JI/Photos.com deal sucks much worse than 20% and they made the mistake of optional opt-in. I have seen how many sales I got through this deal at StockXpert, it wasn't spectacular - now fighting against IS exclusives for attention and the insulting commission. I would be betraying SS and DT if I accepted this bad deal.
what a wonderful analogy :) :)
Yes, it makes me think of Lorena Bobbitt.
-
Now I get it: Getty's out to appease the exclusives. Well, in a way I guess that's fair , if you're exclusive.
Well, factually not right. The Vetta (formerly project name Premiere) collection was already announced in early December 2008. There is no connection to the "Partner Program" (which is the photos.com/JIU deal you are discussing about here). It was launched as the research indicated that the market might be mature enough to grow from microstock to provide higher-value imagery.
-
Man, my head is spinning... I've been out of the loop too long.... 2009 has been a bad year.... my daughter died, then I broke my flippin leg, and while on the mend for the leg I find out I've got stage one lymphoma (and letting you folks all know I'm not saying this looking for sympathy...yeah, it all sux,in time I'll get over it all and the cancer is a shoe-in cure..... that's life, so while I know many of you and you know me, there's no need to comment.. If you thought about it, that makes me happy.. thank you very much.. ).. .. but now while I'm sitting out disability for the next 10 weeks doing the chemo thing.. I figure,
FINALLY, I have some time to sit on my backside, work on the couple thousand pix sitting on the hard drive and get back into my stocks.... only to find this insanity????
I still don't understand exactly whats going on... 50% of my sales on StockXpert were coming thru JIU and P........ now what? Is the thinking still that StockXpert will go belly up?
I've got a sizable folio with IS.... obviously, I'm not exclusive there...
At this point in my life this year my brain is about the equivalent of oatmeal..
I sure would appreciate it if you of you kind folks would put this all in simple english that a 3 year old can understand.. 8)=tom
-
I'm really sorry to hear about your daughter and your cancer,I'll pray for your situation. On the Stock expert thing,all I herd is they are suppose to close down some time this year.
-
Tom,
I'm really sorry to hear about your problems. Surely a year you want to see over soon.
All the best,
Adelaide
-
...On the Stock expert thing,all I herd is they are suppose to close down some time this year.
Where did you hear that? I know some people are speculating on the forums but I haven't heard any real news about them closing the site.
-
Maybe I should rephrase from close to speculate.
-
If they were going to close StockXpert, they should of done it by now. They wont be popular letting us upload to a site and then closing it.
My guess would be that they might let istock exclusives put their portfolios on StockXpert and lower non-exclusive commissions. That would be the final straw for me. I would leave StockXpert and stop uploading to istock.
-
I'm not on Istock,and don't intend to join. I'll stay with stockxpert until whatever happens.
-
My guess would be that they might let istock exclusives put their portfolios on StockXpert and lower non-exclusive commissions. That would be the final straw for me. I would leave StockXpert and stop uploading to istock.
That's an interesting idea; I wonder if they have thought of it. It might tempt some people who consider exclusivity with IS but are afraid to put all their eggs in one basket. Two baskets would be a little safer. Still, all the problems with submitting to IS (rejection of qualilty images, slow submission process, etc) would not be alleviated, unless IS exclusives could also somehow be allowed to submit to StockXpert instead of or in addition to IS.
-
If they were going to close StockXpert, they should of done it by now. They wont be popular letting us upload to a site and then closing it.
My guess would be that they might let istock exclusives put their portfolios on StockXpert and lower non-exclusive commissions. That would be the final straw for me. I would leave StockXpert and stop uploading to istock.
What bummer! Won't catch me leaving my portfolio there either if that happens.
Besides, since Getty won't honor the cannister level % for exclusives outside the istock site, the top exclusives would probably not want to stick their portfolios on StockXpert.
Of course as the JUI-Photos.com issue showed, there are a bunch of people willing to blindly follow wherever Getty leads them... :-\
-
I'm really sorry to hear about your daughter and your cancer,I'll pray for your situation. On the Stock expert thing,all I herd is they are suppose to close down some time this year.
Tom,
I'm really sorry to hear about your problems. Surely a year you want to see over soon.
All the best,
Adelaide
******************************************************
Thanks.... for sure a year I'll never want to relive... but... who on this planet isn't having the same or similar sorrows in their lives... really. Welcome to planet earth. With all my woes.... I personally know people I wouldn't change places with...cause they have it worse than me.....
But thanks again for your comments... they are deeply appreciated.
Meanwhile.......back in the biz... I'm starting to feel like SS is the only joint I can count on for stability..... 8)=tom
-
Meanwhile.......back in the biz... I'm starting to feel like SS is the only joint I can count on for stability..... 8)=tom
I agree Tom. SS and it's stability are a breath of fresh air. Dreamstime is very stable too. If it wasn't for those two sites I think I would have gone crazy a long time ago (although my hubby might argue I already have)! ;)
-
Yea same, I hardly follow the latest try to change the business. Agency merges, subscriptions, macro agencies not so macro selling subs and at the same time extended licence... Where's my Prozac
-
To me it isn't so much about the 5c it's that I can't be bothered to go and tick each image individually. Apparently it's too late to just opt them all in,
And it's even not just ticking off or on each of the images, it's also the need to wait for the stupid confirmation box after each tick!
I've went through the trouble of opting my whole port out and I am no likely to op it in because of the hassle and the principal...
-
I'm opted out too. With StockXpert not paying contributors since the beginning of the month I might be better getting the .25 on istock. At least they pay contributors there.
However I wouldn't even consider it because it is so difficult to opt in.
-
Had a image I submitted to StockXpert about 3 weeks ago sell as a JIU sub thru StockXpert today. I thought that it was odd that they are still migrating StockXpert images to JIU.
-
^^^I think they said our images will be on photos.com and JIU untill the end of August. Then I hope the subs buyers miss my portfolio so much they will have to go to shutterstock :)
-
With StockXpert not paying contributors since the beginning of the month I might be better getting the .25 on istock. At least they pay contributors there.
Lisa, check your inbox. I was finally paid today, and so was another person in my IS CN. I suspect that everyone who had a pending request in was paid today (at least, I hope so).
-
With StockXpert not paying contributors since the beginning of the month I might be better getting the .25 on istock. At least they pay contributors there.
Lisa, check your inbox. I was finally paid today, and so was another person in my IS CN. I suspect that everyone who had a pending request in was paid today (at least, I hope so).
Yup, I requested yesterday and got paid today.
-
With StockXpert not paying contributors since the beginning of the month I might be better getting the .25 on istock. At least they pay contributors there.
Lisa, check your inbox. I was finally paid today, and so was another person in my IS CN. I suspect that everyone who had a pending request in was paid today (at least, I hope so).
Eureeka!! At last! Thanks for the headsup KB. I reluctantly requested another today, although I dread it taking as long as the last one. :-\
-
I'm opted out too. With StockXpert not paying contributors since the beginning of the month I might be better getting the .25 on istock. At least they pay contributors there.
However I wouldn't even consider it because it is so difficult to opt in.
Not paying?
I got my payout in 2 days this month...
-
And it's even not just ticking off or on each of the images, it's also the need to wait for the stupid confirmation box after each tick!
Why "each tick"?
There is control panel option to opt-out or opt-in with Partner program for whole portfolio...
-
And it's even not just ticking off or on each of the images, it's also the need to wait for the stupid confirmation box after each tick!
Why "each tick"?
There is control panel option to opt-out or opt-in with Partner program for whole portfolio...
Because some of us may be willing to offer some less successful images at bargain prices (bargain prices even by microstock standards) but have no desire to give away everything. Exclusives who opt in are only opting in for older images; nonexclusives either opt in everything or go through the tedium of click, wait, wait, click, wait, wait, repeat ad nauseum.
-
I was paid today too, only a couple of days from my request.
-
got paid too, put in my request for the next payment, see how longthis one takes....
-
Not paying?
I got my payout in 2 days this month...
Then I assume you requested just a couple of days ago.
They paid everyone today regardless of when in August we requested. Many of us had payouts pending since the 3rd.
I requested again today too. Hope it doesn't take another 2.5 weeks this time around.
-
^^^I think they said our images will be on photos.com and JIU untill the end of August.
ah.... I must have missed that somewhere... Yeah, I'm still selling on the other two,... in fact, the sales there (jiu & photo) are up a bit. Dont know if it means anything or just a coincidence. 8)=tom
-
^^^I think they said our images will be on photos.com and JIU untill the end of August.
Yeah, I'm still selling on the other two,... in fact, the sales there (jiu & photo) are up a bit. Dont know if it means anything or just a coincidence. 8)=tom
Same here. Maybe the customers who have subscriptions on jiu and photo are grabbing what they can before the StockXpert images are removed?
-
Same here. Maybe the customers who have subscriptions on jiu and photo are grabbing what they can before the StockXpert images are removed?
I would tend to agree with this.
BTW, does anyone know if customers have been notified that so many images (possibly up to a third of the collection) will not be available soon?