Author Topic: thinkstockphotos.com - Getty New Family (Read 108212 times)

sharply_done · « **Reply #250 on:** February 08, 2010, 12:41 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 08, 2010, 03:10

I don't think it's uncommon to have a DPE of more than 2:1 on iStock either. Heck I'm a miniscule player and my dls are 4:1.

Also your second argument doesn't make sense. If you're selling your imagery for 38c on SS, you clearly aren't iStock exclusive, and non-exclusives are getting 25c from Thinkstock.

Downloads-per-image (DLPI) means downloads-per-image-per-month. Same thing goes for revenue-per-image (RPI): it's revenue-per-image-per-month.
A DLPI of 2.0 means that a portfolio of 2000 images would license 4000 images per month. An RPI of $5 for this same portfolio would mean that it earns $10,000 per month. Although there are people on iStock who can match this level of performance, it's a much lower bar on Shutterstock.

My second argument was made from the point of view of a non-exclusive who is currently licensing image at 38c on Shutterstock. By staying independent you'll only be able to sell your images for only 25c on Thinkstock, which isn't very attractive. By going exclusive you'll be able to get more - 36c if you're a diamond, 38c for a black diamond.

And yes, clearly I am an iStock exclusive.

sharply_done · « **Reply #251 on:** February 08, 2010, 12:48 »

Quote from: Pixart on February 08, 2010, 11:48

Quote from: sharply_done on February 08, 2010, 00:42
[On the other hand, it does seem a bit silly to be willing to license your imagery for, say 38c on Shutterstock, but not 36c/38c on Thinkstock.

I keep hearing this argument over and over. The fundamental difference for me is that I don't send Shutterstock full size images. I'd be quite happy to get a quarter for XS, but not XL.

So then don't send Thinkstock full-sized images.
If anything, Thinkstock is *better* than Shutterstock in this regard: Shutterstock accepts 4MP as their smallest size - it's 1.92MP for Thinkstock.

nruboc · « **Reply #252 on:** February 08, 2010, 12:53 »

Quote from: sharply_done on February 08, 2010, 12:48

Quote from: Pixart on February 08, 2010, 11:48
Quote from: sharply_done on February 08, 2010, 00:42
[On the other hand, it does seem a bit silly to be willing to license your imagery for, say 38c on Shutterstock, but not 36c/38c on Thinkstock.

I keep hearing this argument over and over. The fundamental difference for me is that I don't send Shutterstock full size images. I'd be quite happy to get a quarter for XS, but not XL.

So then don't send Thinkstock full-sized images.
If anything, Thinkstock is *better* than Shutterstock in this regard: Shutterstock accepts 4MP as their smallest size - it's 1.92MP for Thinkstock.

I would recommend not downsizing for Thinkstock because when they introduce their image packs, I'm sure they will have tiered pricing like on IStock, so you will want to have the largest size available....woot..woot

macrosaur · « **Reply #253 on:** February 08, 2010, 13:10 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 08, 2010, 12:29

Let me paraphrase that into what I've been saying for a couple of years.

Cutting out the small agencies is a good way to bring more
money on the table for serious agencies.

Stop adding the fly-by-night subscription places that pop up like mushrooms on rotting fallen trees.

There's no more serious agencies.

The most serious, Getty, is willing to ripoff its own top sellers
with unwanted 0.25$/photo deals.

Killing the smaller worms can only do good, thought.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #254 on:** February 08, 2010, 18:36 »

Quote from: massman on February 07, 2010, 15:39

... if the future is low cost subs?

I read the discussions here and many are intelligently presented. However the words future and low cost subs can't, or at least shouldn't, be used in the same sentence. Perhaps it can be said that there are low-cost-subs and really-low-cost-subs and eventually there will likely be pathetically-low-cost-subs etc. But there is no future in that.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #255 on:** February 08, 2010, 18:56 »

Quote from: sharply_done on February 07, 2010, 13:55

. On the flip side of the coin, I also have the opportunity to make imagery for Getty - but I have chosen not to do so. Why? Because that marketplace is in (sharp) decline, and I'd rather invest my time in a growing market.

What are those evolutionary buzzwords again - adapt or perish?

Looking at those little red arrows pointing downwards to the right of this post I'd have to say that perhaps the market is not growing all that well even in the world of micro. Adaption should involve some consideration for the host organism; it's just too easy to overpopulate and starve.

helix7 · « **Reply #256 on:** February 08, 2010, 19:41 »

I'm usually the first person in line to say "follow the money" in microstock, but even I can't stomach this one. Maybe I'm a hypocrite for taking $0.25 per DL from SS back in the day. Maybe it's my ego saying I'm worth much more than that now. Whatever it is, all I know is that $0.25 sucks and this has been handled badly by both istock and StockXpert admins from the start. Confusing credit transfer messaging, disappearing referral earnings, no way to add new images to TS via StockXpert, etc. On top of the low pay rate, it's all just plain old crap and I'm not getting on board with it.

What really gets me is that I used to really like and respect StockXpert. They have always paid well, and brought in enough buyer volume to make up more than 10% of my monthly microstock earnings. But this whole situation just stinks and for the first time ever in my microstock career I am finally drawing that proverbial line in the sand where I think enough is really enough. I yanked all of my images from StockXpert today. To hell with this week's earnings. I want my stuff off TS asap, and I emailed support for that final payout.

I'll figure out a way to make up that lost 10% some other way. It's just not going to be through TS.

macrosaur · « **Reply #257 on:** February 08, 2010, 19:44 »

Quote from: Zeus on February 08, 2010, 18:56

Quote from: sharply_done on February 07, 2010, 13:55
. On the flip side of the coin, I also have the opportunity to make imagery for Getty - but I have chosen not to do so. Why? Because that marketplace is in (sharp) decline, and I'd rather invest my time in a growing market.

What are those evolutionary buzzwords again - adapt or perish?

Looking at those little red arrows pointing downwards to the right of this post I'd have to say that perhaps the market is not growing all that well even in the world of micro. Adaption should involve some consideration for the host organism; it's just too easy to overpopulate and starve.

Who told you Getty's RM market is in sharp decline ?

RM agencies are in deep crap since 2-3 years but putting this into perspective they were
making a ton of money selling crap at premium price and now they're making decent money
selling at cheaper prices but it's still a good payout for their photographers unless you pretend
to have a pension just because you have a few dozen pics sitting on Getty ...

Alamy'd doing fine considering many other agencies went down the drain last year.
Lost maybe 30% of its RM biz but it's still alive and paying on time.

Even wanting i don't think microstocker could make a quick switch to RM, it
takes a very long time to get the foot in the door and start making sales there
and big portfolios in most of the cases.

One of Alamy's top sellers has next to 100.000 pics online for instance.
I can't imagine the time he spent keywording it all ...

Pixart · « **Reply #258 on:** February 08, 2010, 20:18 »

Quote from: sharply_done on February 08, 2010, 12:48

Quote from: Pixart on February 08, 2010, 11:48
Quote from: sharply_done on February 08, 2010, 00:42
[On the other hand, it does seem a bit silly to be willing to license your imagery for, say 38c on Shutterstock, but not 36c/38c on Thinkstock.

I keep hearing this argument over and over. The fundamental difference for me is that I don't send Shutterstock full size images. I'd be quite happy to get a quarter for XS, but not XL.

So then don't send Thinkstock full-sized images.
If anything, Thinkstock is *better* than Shutterstock in this regard: Shutterstock accepts 4MP as their smallest size - it's 1.92MP for Thinkstock.

I'd be happy to send 2mp to Thinkstock, but my conduit to them would have to be Istock since I'm closing shop at StockXpert.

sharply_done · « **Reply #259 on:** February 08, 2010, 21:54 »

Quote from: Zeus on February 08, 2010, 18:56

Looking at those little red arrows pointing downwards to the right of this post I'd have to say that perhaps the market is not growing all that well even in the world of micro.
...

From Jonathan Klein, Getty Co-founder and CEO:
"iStockphoto is the fastest growing part of our business. It is expected to hit $200 million in revenue this year - that is growth of more than 35 percent."

Quote from: macrosaur on February 08, 2010, 19:44

Who told you Getty's RM market is in sharp decline ?
...

Also from Jonathan Klein, Getty Co-founder and CEO:
"Traditional creative stills (RM and RF) is becoming a smaller part of our business. Our customers use more imagery online, which means more volume, but at a lower price. Big-spend print campaigns are not dead, but there are certainly fewer."
"Getty Images did not grow overall revenues in 2009. We must be a growing business, and we must increase our revenue in 2010."

They've been in the news quite a lot lately - slashing budgets, freezing payroll, laying people off, ceasing in-house production ... the list goes on. Companies don't do those sorts of things unless they absolutely need to.

sharply_done · « **Reply #260 on:** February 08, 2010, 22:01 »

Quote from: Pixart on February 08, 2010, 20:18

I'd be happy to send 2mp to Thinkstock, but my conduit to them would have to be Istock since I'm closing shop at StockXpert.

I submitted a bunch of 2MP test images yesterday, some of which were accepted this morning. I'm hoping they appear near the top of the search results - if not, it'll be pointless submitting there: there's little hope for exposure if the newest microstock images are buried deep underneath the old RF stuff.
For now, I'm playing the wait and see game.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #261 on:** February 08, 2010, 22:03 »

Quote from: sharply_done on February 08, 2010, 21:54

Quote from: Zeus on February 08, 2010, 18:56
Looking at those little red arrows pointing downwards to the right of this post I'd have to say that perhaps the market is not growing all that well even in the world of micro.
...
From Jonathan Klein, Getty Co-founder and CEO:
"iStockphoto is the fastest growing part of our business. It is expected to hit $200 million in revenue this year - that is growth of more than 35 percent."

Quote from: macrosaur on February 08, 2010, 19:44
Who told you Getty's RM market is in sharp decline ?
...

Also from Jonathan Klein, Getty Co-founder and CEO:
"Traditional creative stills (RM and RF) is becoming a smaller part of our business. Our customers use more imagery online, which means more volume, but at a lower price. Big-spend print campaigns are not dead, but there are certainly fewer."
"Getty Images did not grow overall revenues in 2009. We must be a growing business, and we must increase our revenue in 2010."

They've been in the news quite a lot lately - slashing budgets, freezing payroll, laying people off, ceasing in-house production ... the list goes on.

macrosaur still gets his news via the newspaper...he's a bit behind in the times...

Suljo · « **Reply #262 on:** February 08, 2010, 23:23 »

Quote from: Anyka on February 06, 2010, 02:01

What I don't understand is the "transfer" of images to ThinkStock. Most of us have many more images on StockXpert than on IS (in my case it's 3100/1800), and the StockXpert announcement talked about the Hemera collection of StockXpert images to ThinkStock.
I was opted in on StockXpert and IS and haven't changed anything (yet), but only 300 IS pictures are appearing on ThinkStock, and not even my bestsellers. If I click "hemera", the result is zero.
Why aren't they using the StockXpert collection? The number is not growing, so it's not a question of slow transfer. And why only 300 IS photos without the bestsellers? Any thoughts?

They play they own game running around the tree and try to fuck they selves.
When they realize that they dont can do it then they want to put you in they endles rottary game.
Now WE for any reason must be detective who in this f.. game screw us???
Why my all port is not on that Fckin Tihig.com from eXpert
Why my non checked images from iStock is on that Thing.conj?!

For greedy company which takes 80% of our royalty I think that they just must be able to do what they are to much payed for.
TO KEEP THINGS ON F... TRACK

I dont want to say that they will MUST to compensate US our average month royalty from eXpert site for every month while they Ting.com exist + sales from that thing.com if they have any balls.
From all posts of many users it seems thaat they dont have it.
OK now is cold wet season but for me they are cold bloody murderess in first agree...

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #263 on:** February 09, 2010, 00:38 »

Hi SJ,

Who said you can't get in. I know 200 photographers that are shooting Macro stock photography now that weren't two years ago and that's just me. Why sell yourself short if you have what the market wants they will represent you. They still do. New agencies and people being signed to Getty and Corbis everyday. This is a fallacy that has no warrant except for the fact that not EVERYONE can get in. That is the position I think you really should defend.

Best,
Jonathan

cardmaverick · « **Reply #264 on:** February 09, 2010, 02:23 »

I keep on wondering when an angry ASSIGNMENT commercial photographer will join this thread and start ranting about how all forms of stock photography are hurting their business.

macrosaur · « **Reply #265 on:** February 09, 2010, 05:57 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on February 08, 2010, 22:03

Also from Jonathan Klein, Getty Co-founder and CEO:
"Traditional creative stills (RM and RF) is becoming a smaller part of our business. Our customers use more imagery online, which means more volume, but at a lower price. Big-spend print campaigns are not dead, but there are certainly fewer."
"Getty Images did not grow overall revenues in 2009. We must be a growing business, and we must increase our revenue in 2010."

They've been in the news quite a lot lately - slashing budgets, freezing payroll, laying people off, ceasing in-house production ... the list goes on.

macrosaur still gets his news via the newspaper...he's a bit behind in the times...

He's just saying the truth : earning from micros are rising fast, while earning from RM are flat or decreasing a bit, no more no less.
He's not saying they'll soon close Getty Images and bet the company on iStock.

Besides, if they don't care anymore about RM, their buyers will just move elsewhere to Alamy, Corbis, AGE, Masterfile, and other smaller specialized agencies.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #266 on:** February 09, 2010, 09:21 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on February 09, 2010, 00:38

Hi SJ,

Who said you can't get in. I know 200 photographers that are shooting Macro stock photography now that weren't two years ago and that's just me. Why sell yourself short if you have what the market wants they will represent you. They still do. New agencies and people being signed to Getty and Corbis everyday. This is a fallacy that has no warrant except for the fact that not EVERYONE can get in. That is the position I think you really should defend.

Best,
Jonathan

I said I can't get in. Because I didn't get in. Tried. And I'm not/wasn't talking about today. I'm talking about 5-10 years ago. That's when the boat sailed.

cathyslife · « **Reply #267 on:** February 09, 2010, 10:22 »

Quote

I said I can't get in. Because I didn't get in. Tried. And I'm not/wasn't talking about today. I'm talking about 5-10 years ago. That's when the boat sailed.

Seems like they really missed the boat on that one. You could be making them a ton of dough today. But wait, under Thinkstock, you would be making them more than a ton of dough.

NitorPhoto · « **Reply #268 on:** February 09, 2010, 10:30 »

I agree with Sjlocke. Trad agencies were very arrogant and repeling with new applicants. What is funny most of them still are. They were/are accepting new photographers not because of their talent or work but because of their track record, name and/or contacts. They were digging their own graves when they were ignorant with the boom of emerging nameless talents. The digital age grown up and the old players can not control them. They could a few years ago... but meanwhile the market has changed and there is no way back anymore.
It is sad the fists who die are those small companies who were the less ignorant - while the big ones have enough money to buy a slot in the future. Now it costs them a lot but still, they survive and can stay dominant.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #269 on:** February 09, 2010, 12:13 »

Quote from: sharply_done on February 08, 2010, 21:54

acrosaur link=topic=9858.msg133638#msg133638 date=1265676285]

Also from Jonathan Klein, Getty Co-founder and CEO:
"Traditional creative stills (RM and RF) is becoming a smaller part of our business. Our customers use more imagery online, which means more volume, but at a lower price. Big-spend print campaigns are not dead, but there are certainly fewer."
"Getty Images did not grow overall revenues in 2009. We must be a growing business, and we must increase our revenue in 2010."

They've been in the news quite a lot lately - slashing budgets, freezing payroll, laying people off, ceasing in-house production ... the list goes on. Companies don't do those sorts of things unless they absolutely need to.

We are in the midst of a very deep recession. There are many good arguements being made that business will never return to normal even as the economy grows. It's hard to say until we reach that point what will happen. I think it is easy to say we must increase our revenue growth for 2010 but not so easy to actually accomplish it.

dgilder · « **Reply #270 on:** February 09, 2010, 12:18 »

Just FYI, the thread on iStock was just locked, pending some kind of official response sometime today.

dgilder · « **Reply #271 on:** February 09, 2010, 12:22 »

Quote from: NitorPhoto on February 09, 2010, 10:30

Trad agencies were very arrogant and repeling with new applicants.

Its the sole reason I am in the microstock world at all. Relatives in the photography biz asked how I could stomach selling photos for so little. Well, they were the only place that would take me.

SNP · « **Reply #272 on:** February 09, 2010, 12:36 »

thread is locked on iS...until new announcement. I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories usually, but this whole thing feels uncharacteristically shady for iS. even the way the admins seem to be gagged. I know they would insist they aren't, but their silence and the reasons for it leave me feeling uneasy. I have received notices in response to my support tickets to remove my images from the PP, which I opted out of last year. the reply was that my images had been removed, however upon searching both sites, all images still there.

I don't know what is going on, but I hope Getty are not so stupid that they would kill their iStock cash cow. quickly, or slowly.

cathyslife · « **Reply #273 on:** February 09, 2010, 12:40 »

Quote

I have received notices in response to my support tickets to remove my images from the PP, which I opted out of last year. the reply was that my images had been removed, however upon searching both sites, all images still there.

That IS scary. I haven't received notice mine were removed (I opted out months ago), they told me it was being done manually and would take some time. Mine are still there.

lisafx · « **Reply #274 on:** February 09, 2010, 12:40 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on February 07, 2010, 22:59

Last month several of you were ready to jump ship because of the way Istock was wooing you and making threats disguised as opportunities ( canister changes and such ) which would have caused even more of a shift of balance in the industry. It appears to me that most everyone in this business is tying to help themselves with little concern to the damage caused to their industry, now there has been a turn of events get use to them.

In fairness, Jonathan, a number of us who were thinking of "jumping ship" to IS exclusivity were doing it less in response to the threats/carrots from Istock and more in response to disagreeable conditions at some other sites. Which is actually more of an effort to stand up for contributor's rights than it is to line our own pockets at the expense of the industry.

As soon as it became obvious that Getty was not ultimately offering any better than the other sites we hopped back on the fence.

Don't get me wrong, my own financial interests are of great importance to me, but you seem to be assuming that those of us who have been seriously planning to go exclusive at IS are indifferent to the fate of the industry as a whole, and that could not be further from the truth.

And BTW, the irony that we microstockers are faced with similar issues that macro photographers were a few years ago is not lost on a number of us. However, like Sean, I applied to Corbis and Getty over 5 years ago before joining the micros and was rejected.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: thinkstockphotos.com - Getty New Family (Read 108212 times)

sharply_done

sharply_done

nruboc

macrosaur

PeterChigmaroff

PeterChigmaroff

helix7

macrosaur

Pixart

sharply_done

sharply_done

ichiro17

Suljo

Jonathan Ross

cardmaverick

macrosaur

Sean Locke Photography

cathyslife

NitorPhoto

PeterChigmaroff

dgilder

dgilder

SNP

cathyslife

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors