That no one, not even a newbie, exclusive, non-exclusive should offer any of their images new or old to thinkstock ? Not even to test out the water (If I ever get to understand this).

We as photographers are hurt on so many levels by this and that opting-in is just like digging your own grave.

They not only offer 0.25 per image, but also are introducing the lowest photographer commission across the industry. You'll get 0.25 even if they sell a single image or a bundle of images, like Shutterstock's On Demand for example and that's far from 20 % commission.

Also by inviting Istock customers to their new founded site, it only shows that the owners do not give a * for anything except their own profits. Many people at Istock signed up for exclusivity only to realize that their own company is sending the customers elsewhere, another site where prices are much lower. Not good.

And the last thing we need is a new subscription site. Offering 0.25 per image in 2010 is just a joke. Hope they realize that.

I am also going to do something positive buy uploading some exclusive images to Cutcaster this year.  There are no cheap subs there and it would be great to see them in the top 6 and giving the sites that have disappointed us some competition.  Instead of being worried about StockXpert going and panicking, perhaps we should be doing all we can to make the sites we like successful?

Agreed. I'm going to do the same (although, hard to say if it won't be punishment for CC given my photo skills ;]]).

That no one, not even a newbie, exclusive, non-exclusive should offer any of their images new or old to thinkstock ? Not even to test out the water (If I ever get to understand this).

They not only offer 0.25 per image, but also are introducing the lowest photographer commission across the industry. You'll get 0.25 even if they sell a single image or a bundle of images, like Shutterstock's On Demand for example and that's far from 20 % commission.

Where did you get that? I think it's not true, I mean the part about the PPD sales.

Just for precission, low prices/commisions are not good for us.

Think Global, Act Local

Quote from: loop on February 06, 2010, 07:01

Where did you get that? I think it's not true, I mean the part about the PPD sales.

I thought stinkstock was a subs-only site?
They have to be by design or they would compete with iStock, something the exclusives there won't be amused with.

They are not amused with it.

Look here: http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/subscribe

And there is:
Image packs

Don't need a full subscription? Our 5, 25, 100, and 250-shot image packs are perfect for smaller budgets or per-project use. Check back soon for details.   COMING SOON

I agree.  If we allow ourselves to be paid 25 cents, what's to stop these same agencies from dropping it even further just to see what they can get away with.  Also, if we accept 25 cents for subscription sales elsewhere, what motivation does Shutterstock have to increase commissions or even keep them where they are?

Some of my images automatically were migrated over to Thinkstock, although it was mostly moldy oldies that don't sell. I was thinking maybe ThinkStock is a place where IS plans to dump non-sellers, and that seemed like a good idea. Now, after reading this thread, I'm wondering if I'm harming the Micro industry by leaving them up. Wouldn't a cheap subs site be a good place to dump our non-sellers and at least get something for them? And have most of our porfolio on the higher paying sites? That was going to be my strategy, but after reading this thread, I'm wondinering if I should opt out completely.

Some of my images automatically were migrated over to Thinkstock, although it was mostly moldy oldies that don't sell. I was thinking maybe ThinkStock is a place where IS plans to dump non-sellers, and that seemed like a good idea.

Not so. Very often low sellers on one site sell well on another. When I deleted my port at SX a few days ago (to avoid those convenient "mistakes" of TS) I had a good look at what sold there over 3 years, and that was totally different from other sites.
But it would be wrong to blame iStock for all this, since they gave a button to opt out of TS. I think the iStock people had to fight hard for this with Getty.

I wonder how many microstock contributors NEVER see this forum?  Are we (MSG) a consensus?

^ I think this has drawn the line for most serious contributors, exclusive or not. even the ones who trusted TPTB see the writing on the wall now. me included. ironic way to unite us...but I refuse to participate in what can only be described as a cash grab...what a bloody fiasco, so disappointing

No, watch out, don't touch the "Extended License Opt Out" button!   

To opt out of Thinkstock :  Control Panel (top right) => Contributor (bottom left)
=> Partner Program => click "Remove All" button.

Totally agree; let's not dig our own graves and tell the industry it's ok to lower sub commissions to $0,25 by opting in for Thinkstock. I'm firmly opted out and hope others will be as well...

Thinkstock pays .25 many others pay .30 but .30 is good and .25 is bad. Isn't .30 bad too, but people say that's good. Why are .30 subscriptions good and .25 bad? Shutterstock pays .25 thats good, Thinkstock pays .25 thatsbad.

Shutterstock pays .25 thats good, Thinkstock pays .25 thatsbad.

This  has been explained before. Because you're fast getting 0.33$ and later 0.36$ then 0.38$ at SS.

I was upset last year because iStock wouldn't accept my vectors.  Now I'm thinking that's a good thing they didn't.  Looks like a slap in the face to everyone that works hard to create their photographs/illustrations.  Am I understanding it right that if you opt in for thinkstock that all images no matter the size is all .25?  If so that's just wrong.