Author Topic: thinkstockphotos.com - Getty New Family (Read 108232 times)

nruboc · « **Reply #150 on:** February 05, 2010, 00:09 »

Quote from: Susan S. on February 05, 2010, 00:06

Istock are actively pushing buyers away from their main site towards thinkstock. I couldn't believe it when I happened upon the latest istock contact sheet.

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=731

Makes perfect sense to me, they make much more off their wholly owned content

helix7 · « **Reply #151 on:** February 05, 2010, 00:28 »

Quote from: madelaide on February 03, 2010, 15:36

Well, I tried "Maria Adelaide Silva" and "Maria Silva" in various forms mentioned herein, and I did not find anything. Gladly.

Totally off-topic, but just thought it was funny to read my wife's maiden name in these forums. No joke, she was once a "Maria Silva."

nruboc · « **Reply #152 on:** February 05, 2010, 00:29 »

Quote from: nruboc on February 05, 2010, 00:09

Quote from: Susan S. on February 05, 2010, 00:06
Istock are actively pushing buyers away from their main site towards thinkstock. I couldn't believe it when I happened upon the latest istock contact sheet.

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=731

Makes perfect sense to me, they make much more off their wholly owned content

And I love how they don't have PPD, but they're going to bring in image packs starting at 5.....wink....wink

helix7 · « **Reply #153 on:** February 05, 2010, 00:37 »

Not sure if this is covered already in this thread, but does anyone know how we are supposed to get new images into ThinkStock if we can't upload via StockXpert?

nruboc · « **Reply #154 on:** February 05, 2010, 00:46 »

Quote from: helix7 on February 05, 2010, 00:37

Not sure if this is covered already in this thread, but does anyone know how we are supposed to get new images into ThinkStock if we can't upload via StockXpert?

IStockPhoto and then opt in to the Partner Program

ShadySue · « **Reply #155 on:** February 05, 2010, 03:12 »

Quote from: Susan S. on February 05, 2010, 00:06

Istock are actively pushing buyers away from their main site towards thinkstock. I couldn't believe it when I happened upon the latest istock contact sheet.

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=731

So all that guff they fed us about it being a different market was just that - guff. They're trying to encourage iStock's customers to become cheap sub buyers. To be honest, I don't understand the argument of 'profitability' over 'turnover', but that's just me.

loop · « **Reply #156 on:** February 05, 2010, 04:01 »

Quote from: Susan S. on February 05, 2010, 00:06

Istock are actively pushing buyers away from their main site towards thinkstock. I couldn't believe it when I happened upon the latest istock contact sheet.

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=731

That's discouraging, and even a bad business movement for them.

RT · « **Reply #157 on:** February 05, 2010, 04:23 »

Quote from: Susan S. on February 05, 2010, 00:06

Istock are actively pushing buyers away from their main site towards thinkstock. I couldn't believe it when I happened upon the latest istock contact sheet.

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=731

What couldn't you believe, iStock or any other site come to that only have one interest at heart and that is making a profit for themselves, they don't care whether they pay the contributor 25c or $5 commission as long as it returns a profit for them and they'll do whatever they can to attract the buyers to their site, if that means you making less money so be it.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #158 on:** February 05, 2010, 06:24 »

As an exclusive this is really disappointing, but not a surprise.

Different buyers, eh? BS. This now shows they're willing to sacrifice Istock for overall profitibility. If Istock makes over $100 million a year why not encourage that massive group of buyers and their cash to go to a site of mostly wholly owned content? Way more profitable. Istock isn't their cash cow. Istock's buyers are their cash cow.

I said recently what happens if there comes a point when they remove the opt-out button. This effectively is the same thing done a bit differently. If you opt out, you now potentially risk missing former Istock buyers. The squeeze is already happening and this is only another step, although a lot more obvious.

A big question is how many buyers will move versus there being new buyers. Given the (lack of) earnings people have seen from Photos.com I think that's a good indicator of what to expect.

I don't know how many buyers will jump and how much money will be shifted but this shows their mindset.

The trust is gone. It's all business now.

grp_photo · « **Reply #159 on:** February 05, 2010, 08:10 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on February 01, 2010, 19:58

Hi All,

Just had a chance to see what the new collection is made of. Say goodbye to Macro RF. Getty is pulling images from every collection they have in RF Macro to fill this site. It will have great images all Macro RF and the work that Istock photographers get to put on Getty will go there as well.
Not necessarily a good thing for Macro but we all new it had to change. Getty is now clumping it's Macro RF into a new subscription site that will be very popular to directly compete with SS and the Micro markets in general. Tons of professionally shot stock from Digital Vision to Brand X and everything in between. Hang on it's gonna get a bit crazy again.
Problem is the next step for Micro shooters working through Getty is they will only have this option unless they can produce quality to meet their RM collections or they are willing to pay for Photographers Choice uploads. Really take a hard look at this. Maybe it will revive Macro RF a bit but at what cost to Micro RF. Subscription Macro RF, that is kinda scary at first thought but we will have to see what will come of it.

Best,
Jonathan

I couldn't find any of your Getty-Images at Thinkstock it isn't the High-Quality-Stuff the moved in this collection. It's just another Shutterstock with some iStockphoto-content.

cathyslife · « **Reply #160 on:** February 05, 2010, 09:40 »

Quote

I said recently what happens if there comes a point when they remove the opt-out button. This effectively is the same thing done a bit differently. If you opt out, you now potentially risk missing former Istock buyers. The squeeze is already happening and this is only another step, although a lot more obvious.

The squeeze is right. And I must say I am more than a little annoyed at how the whole thinkstockphotos has been handled. If you remember correctly, we had to make a BIG stink about getting an opt-out button for partner programs. Then when they did add one, you were automatically opted-in by default and we had to make another BIG stink about changing that. Since that time I have been opted out of partner programs.

And yet my whole portfolio is on thinkstockphotos. To me that shows a HUGE lack of respect by istockphoto for me and my wishes and that is really bothering me. I contacted support on Feb. 2 and asked that my images be removed. I was told in an email that the numbers of the images are messed up so they have to do it all manually. When I called, I was told 24-48 hours they would be down. When I finally got an answer via email, I was told I was on a list and they would get to when they could but the list was long.

I just checked, they are still there.

I am spitting nails right now.

cathyslife · « **Reply #161 on:** February 05, 2010, 10:03 »

I was reading the Welcome Thinkstock to the Family over on the istock forum.

this was posted:

Quote

Looking just at the facts: iStock's latest marketing mailshot is now promoting Thinkstock over and above iStock's own subscription service. The only aim of that can possibly be to drive iStock's subscription clients to there. Thinkstock will themselves very soon start selling "image packs" which look to be basically the same thing as iStock credit bundles, semantics aside.

As for the future I obviously don't know what will happen, but here's my wild stab in the dark. I sense that iStockers will be increasingly impelled to make our images available on Thinkstock. I would then expect that we would see fewer sales here & more "image pack" sales there of regular stock imagery, for which we will earn a smaller commissions than we currently do here.

iStock may then continue it's transition to becoming a mid level stock agency - being no longer microstock or a trad agency, and it could concentrate on selling Vetta & more high end imagery at the higher price level. But the days of selling bog standard objects on white here are possibly receding... just my crystal ball gazing nonsense.

And I know it's not the end of the world, because I am reliably informed by REM that if it was then I would "feel fine", but believe me, I really don't.

I agree with this poster's assessment of where it looks like Getty is headed. I have felt that for quite awhile. Stock is not my main career. I cannot compete with the big guys and shoot Vetta-type material. Which means my stuff will basically be shuffled to Thinkstock.

As an independent, I currently contribute to SS and make more than what Thinkstock will pay me. I was contemplating exclusivity at IS, because before this whole announcement, I would stand to make more money as an exclusive. This announcement, and my thoughts about what is going to happen to Getty in the future, have once again given me pause for the whole exclusivity thing. Coupled with the previous post I made.

The saga continues.

massman · « **Reply #162 on:** February 05, 2010, 10:06 »

Indeed the saga does continue and I think it will be a while before the dust settles with everything that is going on and we get to see a clearer picture.

sharply_done · « **Reply #163 on:** February 05, 2010, 12:32 »

Here is PDN's take on ThinkStock: clickme.

ShadySue · « **Reply #164 on:** February 05, 2010, 12:35 »

Quote from: massman on February 05, 2010, 10:06

Indeed the saga does continue and I think it will be a while before the dust settles with everything that is going on and we get to see a clearer picture.

On the evidence of the past year, there's no chance of that happening. In fact, they seem to have appointed a professional waters-muddier so that we never get a clear picture.

alias · « **Reply #165 on:** February 05, 2010, 13:08 »

I am quite bullish about where things are going and am convinced that subs is mostly a different market. I am also fairly convinced that certain sorts of images make better sense on a subscription / churn site.

The way I see things going there will be Vetta, something in the middle and subs. Obviously with some crossover at the edges. More interesting, very high quality and niche images which less often have to be priced higher.

I see it this way: the customers already know that there are other brands out there apart from IS and with different pricing structures.

So why not compete with those other brands ? Given that IS has competition, the more that competition is broken up the better. And if the customers are not buying subs from a sub site which IS is involved with then they might be thinking of buying a sub from a company which IS is not involved with. Building competing sub sites directly challenges the competition. The more competition the better in some ways.

I am certain that a customer who lands at one of the sister sites is more likely to transfer to IS than a customer who lands at Shutterstock.

I believe that cross branding and cross marketing works. I believe in selling the same stuff in different shops at different prices. I also believe in unicorns and rainbows and elves.

nruboc · « **Reply #166 on:** February 05, 2010, 13:18 »

Quote from: alias on February 05, 2010, 13:08

I am quite bullish about where things are going and am convinced that subs is mostly a different market. I am also fairly convinced that certain sorts of images make better sense on a subscription / churn site.

The way I see things going there will be Vetta, something in the middle and subs. Obviously with some crossover at the edges. More interesting, very high quality and niche images which less often have to be priced higher.

I see it this way: the customers already know that there are other brands out there apart from IS and with different pricing structures.

So why not compete with those other brands ? Given that IS has competition, the more that competition is broken up the better. And if the customers are not buying subs from a sub site which IS is involved with then they might be thinking of buying a sub from a company which IS is not involved with. Building competing sub sites directly challenges the competition. The more competition the better in some ways.

I am certain that a customer who lands at one of the sister sites is more likely to transfer to IS than a customer who lands at Shutterstock.

I believe that cross branding and cross marketing works. I believe in selling the same stuff in different shops at different prices. I also believe in unicorns and rainbows and elves.

I too believe subs is a different market, I also believe image packs starting at 5 is closer to the PPD market than it is to the subs market. Thinkstock will be competing with IStock in this regard.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #167 on:** February 05, 2010, 13:36 »

Quote from: sharply_done on February 05, 2010, 12:32

Here is PDN's take on ThinkStock: clickme.

I'd say it's possible. But how many of the collections on TS are from Jupiter? It can't be all of them. Definately not Photodisc which is Getty RF. So how do they decide which Photodisc stuff goes on TS? I don't want my Getty stuff on TS.

Is Thinkstock really a premium offering? Do they have content editors filtering out garbage? What's preventing it from being a dumping ground of low/no selling stuff? How is it different from the cheaper Photos.com?

The concern I have is their intent. In that article Getty says "Thinkstock will offer more depth and breadth of subject matter, with more diversity of models, than iStockphoto". No matter what IS seems to be the bad family member.

Like Rob Sylvan said in the IS forum it's not the end of the world. No, it isn't, not now. But this is a sign of what's coming. Photos.com seems sluggish and TS may fizzle, who knows. But they will keep trying new things and at some point something will work that may not be good for us.

We're simmering frogs that just had the heat turned up a tiny bit.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #168 on:** February 05, 2010, 14:05 »

I'm pretty sure it was designed as direct competition against SS. Simple enough?

If you look the PhotoObjects collection is most of the site. Some pretty interesting isolations. Nothing fantastic, but surely useful for someone needing a nice simple photo of an object?

Since I'm pretty simple, and nothing from StockXpert has been moved from my photos (yet?), it looks like they took things that haven't sold well and more common materials. Roughly 60% of my IS photos appear on ThinkStock.

I admit to being on SS with most of the same shots, why not have them on ThinkStock for the same commission? A quarter for a snapshot is the same whether it's sold on IS or SS. Yes, I know at $500 SS gives me a nice 8c raise, and I'm looking forward to that.

What I can't see is what's the big stink for people who already sell subs on other sites? Since anyone else can opt out, all photos or by individual photo, they aren't doing anything against the members who don't wish to sell this way.

Another way of looking at it, is the pictures that are on ThinkStock are not the same as the top of the line shots on IS. What's odd when I think about it, is people who sell on SS are complaining that ThinkStock is somehow wrong and different. These people send all the same shots to at least a half dozen agencies, so what's the difference if there's one more market.

Also anything that's lost from StockXpert, as people have been complaining of lost sales and income, will be purchased somewhere. Buyers don't just dry up and evaporate because StockXpert has shut down. They have to get their photos somewhere? All the closing does is re-distribute the buyers to other agencies. ThinkStock will be one of them?

I'm trying to shut up and give this a rest. I was disappointed because nothing from StockXpert was moved to ThinkStock. After that, it's just like getting those 60% of my IS photos into a new agency and I didn't have to upload, edit data, wait, or anything. One is gone, a new place has arrived.

Yes, there will be less options for buyers and we will be getting a flat rate, which isn't the same as StockXpert, but for me, nothing changes. I was getting almost 100% 30c downloads on StockXpert. If this brings in more sales, I'll hope to make up for that lost nickle in volume.

This is little more than a re-branding of the same products, from multiple sources. Instead of five mixed sites, they are now all under one roof. A microstock mini-mall? More attractive location for buyers to come shop.

If you don't sell subs and don't sell on SS, then complaining about ThinkStock is like a bar complaining because there's a kid on the corner with a lemonade stand selling drinks for a quarter, and claiming it's hurting their business? Are they the same customers? Is the product the same quality? No and no...

Now I'll try to stifle myself.

gbcimages · « **Reply #169 on:** February 05, 2010, 14:14 »

yes I feel optimistic about the whole deal,I believe in the long run it will work out. just a little patience .

alias · « **Reply #170 on:** February 05, 2010, 14:46 »

The IS forum is a bit bipolar sometimes. Things are always either really great or really awful.

It's always the same crowd who think that the sky is falling. Who would dare to post that they were happy to just see how things pan out ? Not that I don't love reading those threads.

Fact is that not Getty and not anyone else has got us all by the balls. And one of these days (inevitably) some other model is going to emerge. As happens every few years in photography without fail.

crazychristina · « **Reply #171 on:** February 05, 2010, 14:48 »

istock's edge is its current (18 months) exclusive content, none of which will be going to thinkstock. savvy buyers know this.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #172 on:** February 05, 2010, 15:18 »

Most of you are fine with this, because you see this as just another site. What we (exclusives) don't like is #1, exclusive contributors giving in and diluting the idea of the iStock unique selling point of "exclusive content" by dumping it on a subscription site, and the second sub site for that matter. #2, iStock using its bi-weekly marketing letter to try and push people who are "frequently buying" from iStock to another site.

Of course, I think giving away the farm with subs isn't the smartest move in the world anyways, but that's jmo.

melastmohican · « **Reply #173 on:** February 05, 2010, 15:34 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 05, 2010, 15:18

Most of you are fine with this, because you see this as just another site. What we (exclusives) don't like is #1, exclusive contributors giving in and diluting the idea of the iStock unique selling point of "exclusive content" by dumping it on a subscription site, and the second sub site for that matter. #2, iStock using its bi-weekly marketing letter to try and push people who are "frequently buying" from iStock to another site.

Of course, I think giving away the farm with subs isn't the smartest move in the world anyways, but that's jmo.

Some people simple want to have a cake (exclusivity) and eat it (sell in more outlets) at the same time :-)

gostwyck · « **Reply #174 on:** February 05, 2010, 15:36 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 05, 2010, 15:18

Most of you are fine with this, because you see this as just another site.

No we're not and no we don't. The only folk who want to play ball with TS are those with tiny portfolios and few sales. I don't know of any serious player who sees TS as anything other than Getty attempting to undermine other subscription sites (who already underpay us).

The strange thing is they've killed off StockXpert which probably had a turnover approaching $10M, highly profitable and growing at the same pace as the rest of the industry __ in favour of TS. That doesn't make any sense to me.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: thinkstockphotos.com - Getty New Family (Read 108232 times)

nruboc

helix7

nruboc

helix7

nruboc

ShadySue

loop

RT

PaulieWalnuts

grp_photo

cathyslife

cathyslife

massman

sharply_done

ShadySue

alias

nruboc

PaulieWalnuts

RacePhoto

gbcimages

alias

crazychristina

Sean Locke Photography

melastmohican

gostwyck

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors