pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Sales dropping. Istock especially.  (Read 29496 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #100 on: September 19, 2011, 15:28 »
0
Response to Yuri: Posted by:lthn
No sorry, not because of you or this post at all, but because I want to keep my 'speech free' about the agencies, and I do have an amount of not nice things to say about them. I think they deserve it. I also do know that they take retribution just for people stating their opinion.

A truly pathetic excuse. In the name (if I may) of many others here on this forum who do not hide behind anonymity in any shape or form, and still state what they believe, think and without fear of consequence - post it.

Grow up or grow a backbone. Or maybe better still, don't make comments at all if you don't have the guts to state who you are.

(PS) sorry, I could help but correct your spelling and grammar in the pasted section.



Are you Mr. Cogent? A son to Mr. and Mrs. Marketing?

No. I'm the owner of cogent marketing communications. www.cogentmarketing.co.uk


I could have googled that too... but since there isn't even a link, how should I know if it has anything to do with you, huh? Maybe you should mea culpa now.


XPTO

« Reply #101 on: September 19, 2011, 15:37 »
0
Response to Yuri: Posted by:lthn
No sorry, not because of you or this post at all, but because I want to keep my 'speech free' about the agencies, and I do have an amount of not nice things to say about them. I think they deserve it. I also do know that they take retribution just for people stating their opinion.

A truly pathetic excuse. In the name (if I may) of many others here on this forum who do not hide behind anonymity in any shape or form, and still state what they believe, think and without fear of consequence - post it.

Grow up or grow a backbone. Or maybe better still, don't make comments at all if you don't have the guts to state who you are.

(PS) sorry, I could help but correct your spelling and grammar in the pasted section.



Are you Mr. Cogent? A son to Mr. and Mrs. Marketing?

No. I'm the owner of cogent marketing communications. www.cogentmarketing.co.uk


Where do I find proof of that? That's what you're saying but there's no way anyone could check it.

BTW, I'm "Colonel" Sanders, and I'm the owner of KFC. Wait just a minute so I can get one of my photos from the web and load it as my avatar... My website is kfc.com if you want to check I'm serious.

I personally don't give a cr*p about identification in foruns. I just pay attention to what it's said and limit to agree or disagree with what I read giving credit to people based on the messages and not on who they hypothetically say they are.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2011, 15:39 by XPTO »

Cogent Marketing

« Reply #102 on: September 19, 2011, 15:48 »
0
Response to Yuri: Posted by:lthn
No sorry, not because of you or this post at all, but because I want to keep my 'speech free' about the agencies, and I do have an amount of not nice things to say about them. I think they deserve it. I also do know that they take retribution just for people stating their opinion.

A truly pathetic excuse. In the name (if I may) of many others here on this forum who do not hide behind anonymity in any shape or form, and still state what they believe, think and without fear of consequence - post it.

Grow up or grow a backbone. Or maybe better still, don't make comments at all if you don't have the guts to state who you are.

(PS) sorry, I could help but correct your spelling and grammar in the pasted section.



Are you Mr. Cogent? A son to Mr. and Mrs. Marketing?

No. I'm the owner of cogent marketing communications. www.cogentmarketing.co.uk


Where do I find proof of that? That's what you're saying but there's no way anyone could check it.

BTW, I'm "Colonel" Sanders, and I'm the owner of KFC. Wait just a minute so I can get one of my photos from the web and load it as my avatar... My website is kfc.com if you want to check I'm serious.

I personally don't give a cr*p about identification in foruns. I just pay attention to what it's said and limit to agree or disagree with what I read giving credit to people based on the messages and not on who they hypothetically say they are.

Quite frankly your response is ridiculous, as is your KFC analogy. And you don't need to resort to bad language even with ** to make your point. My identity is known to every single customer who purchases one of my images. It's on the page after the symbol next to the image. It is also embedded in the file information of every image uploaded, including my web site. I don't include my inside leg measurement or social security number, but if it was a requirement I probably would. I don't have anything to hide, others appear to be a little more reticent and all I ask is why?

Cogent Marketing

« Reply #103 on: September 19, 2011, 15:50 »
0
AND CAN WE PLEASE GET BACK ON OP MESSAGE?

It's more interesting to other forum members than this current 'tennis match'

Thanks.

« Reply #104 on: September 19, 2011, 16:03 »
0
AND CAN WE PLEASE GET BACK ON OP MESSAGE?

It's more interesting to other forum members than this current 'tennis match'

Thanks.

Amen.

And besides, the quote that Yuri made has been posted now by two different people, so no one needs to hide or not hide...maybe Yuri forgot he said that? I remember reading it at the time, too, and thinking about how diametrically opposed my personal point of view regarding istock was (and still is). But if he were in a position to make a deal with istock, and that was his thought, the quote made (makes) perfect sense.

« Reply #105 on: September 19, 2011, 16:44 »
0
But if he were in a position to make a deal with istock, and that was his thought, the quote made (makes) perfect sense.

What really surprises me is that Yuri doesn't have a special deal with Istock. Look, here is a guy (ok a company) who consistently outselling all others, even on Istock with just - what, 1/5th of his current portfolio? - and they wouldn't even allow him better upload limits (judging by the size of his portfolio there). That buffles me. They are in this business to make money, right? So they  can easily add few hundred thousand in profit *a month* just by hosting his entire portfolio...  this just doesn't make any common sense to me...

ShadySue

« Reply #106 on: September 19, 2011, 16:52 »
0
But if he were in a position to make a deal with istock, and that was his thought, the quote made (makes) perfect sense.

What really surprises me is that Yuri doesn't have a special deal with Istock. Look, here is a guy (ok a company) who consistently outselling all others, even on Istock with just - what, 1/5th of his current portfolio? - and they wouldn't even allow him better upload limits (judging by the size of his portfolio there). That buffles me. They are in this business to make money, right? So they  can easily add few hundred thousand in profit *a month* just by hosting his entire portfolio...  this just doesn't make any common sense to me...

I'm guessing that would be the last straw for some/many top-ranking exclusives.
To be honest, if I were Yuri, I'd set up my own site. Can't see any point in giving money away to agencies if I had the buyers looking specifically for my images. Yeah it would take time and effort, but he already has a team, why not add a few more? Wasn't he thinking about it a few weeks back?

« Reply #107 on: September 19, 2011, 17:04 »
0
What really surprises me is that Yuri doesn't have a special deal with Istock. Look, here is a guy (ok a company) who consistently outselling all others, even on Istock with just - what, 1/5th of his current portfolio? - and they wouldn't even allow him better upload limits (judging by the size of his portfolio there). That buffles me. They are in this business to make money, right? So they  can easily add few hundred thousand in profit *a month* just by hosting his entire portfolio...  this just doesn't make any common sense to me...

Agreed. Not only that but they are providing a gift to their competitors by being the only agency that doesn't have 'The Compleat Works of Yuri'.

« Reply #108 on: September 19, 2011, 17:18 »
0
What really surprises me is that Yuri doesn't have a special deal with Istock. Look, here is a guy (ok a company) who consistently outselling all others, even on Istock with just - what, 1/5th of his current portfolio? - and they wouldn't even allow him better upload limits (judging by the size of his portfolio there). That buffles me. They are in this business to make money, right? So they  can easily add few hundred thousand in profit *a month* just by hosting his entire portfolio...  this just doesn't make any common sense to me...

Agreed. Not only that but they are providing a gift to their competitors by being the only agency that doesn't have 'The Compleat Works of Yuri'.

+1.

I'm surprised he doesn't have a deal too. And since most (if not all) of the employees at istock seem to be contributors, no way that little tidbit could be kept secret. A good argument for NOT allowing employees to be contributors (seems like it would be a conflict of interest anyway, but even Bruce was a contributor. Guess that's what set the precedent.)

« Reply #109 on: September 19, 2011, 17:25 »
0
What really surprises me is that Yuri doesn't have a special deal with Istock. Look, here is a guy (ok a company) who consistently outselling all others, even on Istock with just - what, 1/5th of his current portfolio? - and they wouldn't even allow him better upload limits (judging by the size of his portfolio there). That buffles me.

That's about the one and only fair thing that iStock has done. The rules should be the same for all of us. I really cannot understand why someone would thing that it would be a good thing if an agency would give some members unfair advantages and benefits.

« Reply #110 on: September 19, 2011, 17:29 »
0
years ago I probably would have argued that iStock doesn't do special deals with hand-picked contributors. but then I saw the speed with which contributor Elena Vizerskaya was brought in, downloaded, made exclusive and boom--all in a very orchestrated fashion.....I love her work, that is beside the point. and theoretically I don't have any problem with superstar contributors being brought in to boost traffic etc.

however, there are clearly many special deals going down these days.....like Agency contributors with flexible exclusivity etc. not to mention special collections we're ostracized from. the backroom shenanigans are so much more apparent today, that even we optimists are in or ready to jump into self-preservation mode.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #111 on: September 19, 2011, 17:37 »
0
But if he were in a position to make a deal with istock, and that was his thought, the quote made (makes) perfect sense.

What really surprises me is that Yuri doesn't have a special deal with Istock. Look, here is a guy (ok a company) who consistently outselling all others, even on Istock with just - what, 1/5th of his current portfolio? - and they wouldn't even allow him better upload limits (judging by the size of his portfolio there). That buffles me. They are in this business to make money, right? So they  can easily add few hundred thousand in profit *a month* just by hosting his entire portfolio...  this just doesn't make any common sense to me...

When I registered on IS as contributor (I was familiar with it for years before that as a buyer) I wondered around the forums quite a lot to get the feel of the site... when I ran into some interactions between Yuri and the staff, it just looked like they don't like him too much to say the least. Almost hostile sometimes, I found that weird... weird little ppl at istock, they just don't seem to know what they are doing

« Reply #112 on: September 19, 2011, 17:45 »
0
years ago I probably would have argued that iStock doesn't do special deals with hand-picked contributors. but then I saw the speed with which contributor Elena Vizerskaya was brought in, downloaded, made exclusive and boom--all in a very orchestrated fashion.....I love her work, that is beside the point. and theoretically I don't have any problem with superstar contributors being brought in to boost traffic etc.

however, there are clearly many special deals going down these days.....like Agency contributors with flexible exclusivity etc. not to mention special collections we're ostracized from. the backroom shenanigans are so much more apparent today, that even we optimists are in or ready to jump into self-preservation mode.

Why do you mean by "brought in"? As far as I know she had a POW, yes, and she became exclusive after reaching 250 downloads.

« Reply #113 on: September 19, 2011, 17:47 »
0
years ago I probably would have argued that iStock doesn't do special deals with hand-picked contributors. but then I saw the speed with which contributor Elena Vizerskaya was brought in, downloaded, made exclusive and boom--all in a very orchestrated fashion.....I love her work, that is beside the point. and theoretically I don't have any problem with superstar contributors being brought in to boost traffic etc.

however, there are clearly many special deals going down these days.....like Agency contributors with flexible exclusivity etc. not to mention special collections we're ostracized from. the backroom shenanigans are so much more apparent today, that even we optimists are in or ready to jump into self-preservation mode.

Why do you mean by "brought in"? As far as I know she had a POW, yes, and she became exclusive after reaching 250 downloads.

Yeah, i remember her getting 250 dls real fast...

« Reply #114 on: September 19, 2011, 17:50 »
0
I mean seemingly recruited....and that is just surmising. I don't know her, and as I said I really find her work is spectacular. but, it was the first instance of rumbling within the community on my timeline anyways where it seemed a contributor was singularly and aggressively promoted. saying that, her work garnered attention because of its merits too, I'm sure.

iStock did publish an article about her http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=975

the article discussed her ascent on iStock in a positive light. and that may be true. however at the time, there were lots of questions and concerns within the community about the super fast rise of this contributor.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2011, 17:52 by SNP »

ShadySue

« Reply #115 on: September 19, 2011, 17:58 »
0
I mean seemingly recruited....and that is just surmising. I don't know her, and as I said I really find her work is spectacular. but, it was the first instance of rumbling within the community on my timeline anyways where it seemed a contributor was singularly and aggressively promoted. saying that, her work garnered attention because of its merits too, I'm sure.

iStock did publish an article about her http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=975

the article discussed her ascent on iStock in a positive light. and that may be true. however at the time, there were lots of questions and concerns within the community about the super fast rise of this contributor.

I thnk she was headhunted and 'hothoused'. So fast that I remember that after she became exclusive, you could still freely download at least some of her iStock pics, full size,  free from Flickr, including her IOW puppy/laundry (yet at least 250 people had paid to download it from iStock). I'm guessing she was 'rushed' so fast, she didn't realise it wasn't allowed.

XPTO

« Reply #116 on: September 19, 2011, 18:00 »
0
Quite frankly your response is ridiculous, as is your KFC analogy. And you don't need to resort to bad language even with ** to make your point. My identity is known to every single customer who purchases one of my images. It's on the page after the symbol next to the image. It is also embedded in the file information of every image uploaded, including my web site. I don't include my inside leg measurement or social security number, but if it was a requirement I probably would. I don't have anything to hide, others appear to be a little more reticent and all I ask is why?

No, my analogy is not ridiculous. It's perfect. What's ridiculous is you pretending that just because you say you are someone in the Internet that makes it true. I'm not questioning you are who you say you are (and couldn't care less) but since there's no way I can verify it what is the value of your statement? Even in the real world there a crooks that have fake ID's that trick the police!

And who's talking about your costumers? What do they have to do with this discussion? Wasn't the identification in this discussion forum what was being questioned? In the real world everyone is known by our own costumers. So what does that prove?

You say that if it was required you'd include your SSN and measurements. But since it isn't required you don't include them, right? Can you point in the Terms of Service of this group where it required to people identify themselves with real names and information? So if you do not provide more information than what is required, who are you to demand others to do it when it's not mandatory?

As for the reasons for others to hide their true identity, everyone has one. And I hope that one day that openness of yours won't bite you hard, because what's written in the Internet stays here forever, and you may regret in the future to be connected with certain statements, that no matter how true they are some people may look at them differently. We do not live in a free, just and tolerant world in case you haven't noticed. Just forget the propaganda.

Anyway, I prefer a good, honest and free comment from an anonymous person that's able to do it because of it, than a self-censored comment from someone who's afraid to put all the cards on the table with caution of future consequences. There's a reason why the vote in elections is secret...

I also think that we should get back on topic. I just think it's pathetic when someone cries for a real identification in an Internet forum, and using this factor as something to ascertain the credibility an usefulness of anything written by others...
« Last Edit: September 19, 2011, 18:03 by XPTO »


« Reply #117 on: September 19, 2011, 18:04 »
0
I mean seemingly recruited....and that is just surmising. I don't know her, and as I said I really find her work is spectacular. but, it was the first instance of rumbling within the community on my timeline anyways where it seemed a contributor was singularly and aggressively promoted. saying that, her work garnered attention because of its merits too, I'm sure.

iStock did publish an article about her http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=975

the article discussed her ascent on iStock in a positive light. and that may be true. however at the time, there were lots of questions and concerns within the community about the super fast rise of this contributor.

I thnk she was headhunted and 'hothoused'. So fast that I remember that after she became exclusive, you could still freely download at least some of her iStock pics, full size,  free from Flickr, including her IOW puppy/laundry (yet at least 250 people had paid to download it from iStock). I'm guessing she was 'rushed' so fast, she didn't realise it wasn't allowed.


well, again, I don't know if any of that is true. I just know what we all saw and how many of us felt about it. not begrudging the success of another contributor, but certainly concerned about preferential treatment when we play by the rules and all pay the same royalties (hah, in fact some of us are paying more since the RC debacle). add to that recent flexible exclusivity given to certain contributors....how do you keep yourself from thinking competitively? as I said earlier, kindness is wonderful, but this is business too and kindness is not a currency in our industry.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2011, 18:06 by SNP »

ShadySue

« Reply #118 on: September 19, 2011, 18:13 »
0
(Re: Elena)
I thnk she was headhunted and 'hothoused'. So fast that I remember that after she became exclusive, you could still freely download at least some of her iStock pics, full size,  free from Flickr, including her IOW puppy/laundry (yet at least 250 people had paid to download it from iStock). I'm guessing she was 'rushed' so fast, she didn't realise it wasn't allowed.

well, again, I don't know if any of that is true. I just know what we all saw and how many of us felt about it. not begrudging the success of another contributor, but certainly concerned about preferential treatment when we play by the rules and all pay the same royalties (hah, in fact some of us are paying more since the RC debacle). add to that recent flexible exclusivity given to certain contributors....how do you keep yourself from thinking competitively? as I said earlier, kindness is wonderful, but this is business too and kindness is not a currency in our industry.
[/quote]
The Flickr bit is objective truth. I downloaded the pic at full size after she was exclusive. My other statements are subjective opinion, qualified as such by "I think" and "I guess".
IIRC, other people have been refused exclusivity until they have restricted their Flickr images.

nruboc

« Reply #119 on: September 19, 2011, 18:16 »
0
Quite frankly your response is ridiculous, as is your KFC analogy. And you don't need to resort to bad language even with ** to make your point. My identity is known to every single customer who purchases one of my images. It's on the page after the symbol next to the image. It is also embedded in the file information of every image uploaded, including my web site. I don't include my inside leg measurement or social security number, but if it was a requirement I probably would. I don't have anything to hide, others appear to be a little more reticent and all I ask is why?

No, my analogy is not ridiculous. It's perfect. What's ridiculous is you pretending that just because you say you are someone in the Internet that makes it true. I'm not questioning you are who you say you are (and couldn't care less) but since there's no way I can verify it what is the value of your statement? Even in the real world there a crooks that have fake ID's that trick the police!

And who's talking about your costumers? What do they have to do with this discussion? Wasn't the identification in this discussion forum what was being questioned? In the real world everyone is known by our own costumers. So what does that prove?

You say that if it was required you'd include your SSN and measurements. But since it isn't required you don't include them, right? Can you point in the Terms of Service of this group where it required to people identify themselves with real names and information? So if you do not provide more information than what is required, who are you to demand others to do it when it's not mandatory?

As for the reasons for others to hide their true identity, everyone has one. And I hope that one day that openness of yours won't bite you hard, because what's written in the Internet stays here forever, and you may regret in the future to be connected with certain statements, that no matter how true they are some people may look at them differently. We do not live in a free, just and tolerant world in case you haven't noticed. Just forget the propaganda.

Anyway, I prefer a good, honest and free comment from an anonymous person that's able to do it because of it, than a self-censored comment from someone who's afraid to put all the cards on the table with caution of future consequences. There's a reason why the vote in elections is secret...

I also think that we should get back on topic. I just think it's pathetic when someone cries for a real identification in an Internet forum, and using this factor as something to ascertain the credibility an usefulness of anything written by others...

Yawn, everyone else has moved along to the topic at hand, we don't need a book on the matter.

« Reply #120 on: September 19, 2011, 18:26 »
0
Interesting thread and topic... Ive had pretty bad sales for September, quite unusual and I think Ive pinpointed the cause:

 (Bad Karma)^2 [(Microstock Model) (Bruce Leaving) (Getty)] + [(Higher Prices)(Economic Crisis)]
_________________________________________________________________________________ = iStock '11

                         [(Competition)(Bad Word Of Mouth) (Best Match) ^3] - (Redeemed Credit System) ^2
« Last Edit: September 19, 2011, 18:33 by jamesbenet »

« Reply #121 on: September 19, 2011, 18:27 »
0
I'm surprised he doesn't have a deal too. And since most (if not all) of the employees at istock seem to be contributors, no way that little tidbit could be kept secret. A good argument for NOT allowing employees to be contributors (seems like it would be a conflict of interest anyway, but even Bruce was a contributor. Guess that's what set the precedent.)

I guess the prevailing opinion that he would need a deal at all tells you something about how the place is run. Unless, not setting up a ton of roadblocks is considered a deal now.  ;D

« Reply #122 on: September 19, 2011, 18:28 »
0
Interesting thread and topic... Ive had pretty bad sales for September, quite unusual and I think Ive pinpointed the cause:

 (Bad Karma)^2 [(Microstock Model) (Bruce Leaving) (Getty)] + (Higher Prices)(Economic Crisis)
_________________________________________________________________________________ = iStock '11

                         [(Bad Word Of Mouth)  (Best Match) ^3] - (Redeemed Credit System) ^2


nice, I love it :-)

ShadySue

« Reply #123 on: September 19, 2011, 18:29 »
0
Interesting thread and topic... Ive had pretty bad sales for September, quite unusual and I think Ive pinpointed the cause:

 (Bad Karma)^2 [(Microstock Model) (Bruce Leaving) (Getty)] + (Higher Prices)(Economic Crisis)
_________________________________________________________________________________ = iStock '11

                         [(Bad Word Of Mouth)  (Best Match) ^3] - (Redeemed Credit System) ^2


nice, I love it :-)
+1  ;)

« Reply #124 on: September 19, 2011, 18:30 »
0
Interesting thread and topic... Ive had pretty bad sales for September, quite unusual and I think Ive pinpointed the cause:

 (Bad Karma)^2 [(Microstock Model) (Bruce Leaving) (Getty)] + (Higher Prices)(Economic Crisis)
_________________________________________________________________________________ = iStock '11

                         [(Bad Word Of Mouth)  (Best Match) ^3] - (Redeemed Credit System) ^2


You nailed the equation perfectly!  :D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2131 Views
Last post September 06, 2006, 22:55
by Quevaal
24 Replies
8236 Views
Last post October 29, 2010, 22:54
by PaulieWalnuts
67 Replies
9308 Views
Last post November 05, 2009, 02:42
by traveler1116
8 Replies
1307 Views
Last post October 26, 2012, 11:54
by enstoker
10 Replies
1466 Views
Last post December 18, 2013, 05:12
by targoszstock

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors