MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Crestock.com => Topic started by: Lior on April 28, 2008, 03:42
-
I browsed a little at crestock earlier today (which I don't do much, I don't upload much there either, since they are good on rejections and poor with sales...) to find out one of my shots in the "worst image of the day" archive...
this is the one: http://www.crestock.com/todays-worst-image.aspx?id=572 (http://www.crestock.com/todays-worst-image.aspx?id=572).
I don't mind getting a beat when I deserve one, but to claim that this photo is blurry makes me think that the honorable judge needs a new pair of glasses... ;)
the picture is pin sharp, and actually sold a few times on other sites (including SS and IS which I believe won't accept blurry shots...).
all in all, it made my day. good to start a day laughing :P
-
I had a look at it zoomed in on istock and it does look sharp. I suppose the flare from the lights can look like blur if you only look at one bit of the photo. Just goes to prove that judges don't always get it right :)
-
well i would have to agree here. it looks like the judge needs new glasses :)
It does look blurry though if you just looks at the lights and not the buildings.... but.....
-
Why would any serious site accept something that they think deserves to have fun poked at it? And why would they insult a contributor like that? For that matter, I wonder why theyd want to show off bad images. All seems a bit tacky and amateurish to me.
(image seems fine...)
-
well it confirms my suspicions about Crestocks "High Standards"
I'll have to take your word for it that the image is sharp - I've also had plenty of rejections on images that were deemed sharp enough on 6 other stock sites.
The image in my eyes is very usable for stock - plenty of copyspace, and a theme that relates to Electricity generation.
To me the whole "worst images" section is offensive. Is there something in their terms and conditions that entitles them to insult submitters? Maybe a lawsuit waiting to happen :)
-
if there's one dope thats going to hasten the death of any stock site its that arrogunt wigged gobshite waving his gavel around like he knows what hes talking about. so incensed wuz i by some of his off the wall critiques i simply stopped uploading, which reminds me i must delete whats already up there.
-
Why would any serious site accept something that they think deserves to have fun poked at it? And why would they insult a contributor like that? For that matter, I wonder why theyd want to show off bad images. All seems a bit tacky and amateurish to me.
(image seems fine...)
the worst images of the day are not accepted.
I believe it is there to try and help people learn what a good / bad stock image is, and probably for interest sake to drive traffic. If people find it helpful or not I dunno... I don't tend to pay much attention to the judge's decisions :)
-
if there's one dope thats going to hasten the death of any stock site its that arrogunt wigged gobshite waving his gavel around like he knows what hes talking about. so incensed wuz i by some of his off the wall critiques i simply stopped uploading, which reminds me i must delete whats already up there.
Yeah.. I feel the same - probably even more telling is the "best photos" Stuff - while some of it isn't bad, there's nothing there that's particularly brilliant either.
I only have 16 files on there... thinking of pulling those also. So far no downloads!
-
Some of the worst photos of the day have given me a laugh. Crestock spend lots on advertising, I have seen 2 page adverts in design magazines.
Sold 300 there so far but it is disappointing that most of them are for $0.25. If that doesn't change soon I will have to stop uploading.
-
In the early days of Crestock i complained about the humiliation to the photogs with that worst image of the day.
They replied to me that the photog in question is asked if image may be portrayed as worst of the day.
Still, i think it is no good to do so... this has been one of the reasons I quit crestock in the early days already.
Patrick H.
-
In the early days of Crestock i complained about the humiliation to the photogs with that worst image of the day.
They replied to me that the photog in question is asked if image may be portrayed as worst of the day.
Still, i think it is no good to do so... this has been one of the reasons I quit crestock in the early days already.
Patrick H.
Golden rule of biz never "EVER" humiliate your best ppl.
-
In the early days of Crestock i complained about the humiliation to the photogs with that worst image of the day.
They replied to me that the photog in question is asked if image may be portrayed as worst of the day.
Still, i think it is no good to do so... this has been one of the reasons I quit crestock in the early days already.
Patrick H.
Golden rule of biz never "EVER" humiliate your best ppl.
...or your worst...they may get better or be in a position down the road to "help" you. The ole Judge is definately a "bridge burner"...
-
Lets hope this isn't your 15 minutes of fame (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_minutes_of_fame)
-
Lets hope this isn't your 15 minutes of fame ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_minutes_of_fame[/url])
who's? Lior's or Judge Ross'? ;)
-
If it's any consolation, I don't think Judge Ross has too keen an eye for commercial imagery: Although I've been selected for 'Today's Best Image' (a rather unprecedented) ten times, for the most part the shots he's selected are not amongst my best sellers on Crestock or anywhere else.
-
I've always thought that presenting the "worst photo of the day" the way they do, has been in very bad taste. On the other hand: what else can we expect from one of the "lowest selling stock agencies in the world"?
Great photo btw. Just goes to show that they don't have a clue what they're talking about.
-
to quote a former poster who was banned from this forum, i';d love to c things from his point of view but i don't think i could get my head that far up my ass ;D
-
The photo posted really doen't do anything special for me, but that doesn't mean it's bad or has no use.
This Judge Ross thing is one of the reasons I stayed away from Crestock. Very childish tactic. If they did with more professional methods where contributors could actually learn, that would be one thing, but open mockery of those who help pay their bills is uncalled for. If they slam contributors, who knows what they're saying about their buyers.
Hey Crestock Josh, Are You Listening??
-
to quote a former poster who was banned from this forum, i';d love to c things from his point of view but i don't think i could get my head that far up my ass ;D
Lots of booze and lube :P
-
Pretty poor business practice. And to echo others, if it sucked that much, how the heck did it get on the site? It just turned me off to uploading there.
BTW, Lior, It's NOT blurry. And from a marketing perspective, it is a very good shot, plenty of room for text or related photos. The black at top and bottom make it easy to turn into a vertical shot for page advert... Judge, hunh? Guess this is a perfect example of blind justice. 8)=tom
-
if there's one dope thats going to hasten the death of any stock site its that arrogunt wigged gobshite waving his gavel around like he knows what hes talking about. so incensed wuz i by some of his off the wall critiques i simply stopped uploading, which reminds me i must delete whats already up there.
You sound familiar. Contakt = Editorial?
-
I deleted all my images from Crestock,
-Not enough sales
-Lousy commision
-Bad review process
-and a spokesperson who (as this thread proves) hasn't got a clue about photography.
IMO this isn't the way to conduct a successful business, especially one where there's so much competition.
The only good thing about Crestock is Josh, if you read this Josh get a job with iStock!
-
I thought it had been said in the site that images would only be shown there with the photographer's consent? Not that I see a reason why someone would accept this, given the way this is presented.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
Perhaps they might consider changing 'Today's Worst Image' to 'Today's Best Rejection'. This way they could use part of the site to educate contributors as to why an image that is acceptable elsewhere is unacceptable at Crestock.
As it stands, I see no use for the 'Worst Image' other than to get an occasional chuckle, which isn't advancing anybody's career.
-
Hola,
Just finished reading all the posts and not really sure where to start..
First, may i humbly suggest a more relaxed approach to Judge Ross. We don't mind a little bit of controversy, stirring up some dust every now and then, but we do not want this to deter anyone from contributing. This is not a reflection on the business as a whole, but is a very small part of the Crestock community that is currently being redeveloped and that, when released, i'd encourage all of you to be a part of.
Lior, our apologies because there seems to have been a small error made here. Without wanting to kill any of the myth or controversy of Judge Ross, images are chosen so that they will not offend. That is, from contributors who haven't been active in 2 years. The chances that the original contributor will see the images are slim. And, then, in this case, it was a 'borderline' rejection (don't know exactly as i can't find the full-size original) and the reasons for rejection aren't apparent at preview size. I believe this was a mistake, and this is not the intended result of Judge Ross' picks.
Perhaps they might consider changing 'Today's Worst Image' to 'Today's Best Rejection'. This way they could use part of the site to educate contributors as to why an image that is acceptable elsewhere is unacceptable at Crestock.
As it stands, I see no use for the 'Worst Image' other than to get an occasional chuckle, which isn't advancing anybody's career.
This is where I'd like Judge Ross to be heading. Like everyone's mum would have told them growing up, 'If you don't have anything helpful to say, don't say anything at all.' The education of contributors is something that i've been investing a lot of time into, and perhaps Judge Ross would be a good place to give out some good advice and useful articles on avoiding the issues he raises.
Thanks for the feedback,
Josh - Crestock.com
-
I deleted all my images from Crestock,
-Not enough sales
-Lousy commision
-Bad review process
-and a spokesperson who (as this thread proves) hasn't got a clue about photography.
IMO this isn't the way to conduct a successful business, especially one where there's so much competition.
The only good thing about Crestock is Josh, if you read this Josh get a job with iStock!
Exactly my opinion. I have deleted all my images from Crestock too. After Luckyoliver experience it's time to be more selective with microstock sites.
-
Josh, the sensible move for crestock is to raise the $0.25 for subscription sales. SS are going to give us a raise in the next few days and I will have to re asses if it is worth my time uploading to the lower paying sites.
It is obvious from the other sites that people will pay more for our work. Receiving $0.25 for a sale is looking ridiculous.
-
What I would like to know is why a site which has REJECTEDan image feels it has the right to use that image in any manner other than for record keeping purposes.
-
if there's one dope thats going to hasten the death of any stock site its that arrogunt wigged gobshite waving his gavel around like he knows what hes talking about. so incensed wuz i by some of his off the wall critiques i simply stopped uploading, which reminds me i must delete whats already up there.
You sound familiar. Contakt = Editorial?
Oooh dear have I been unmasked. You had better tell all the boys and girls and leaf real quick coz u never know what may happen!
-
What I would like to know is why a site which has REJECTEDan image feels it has the right to use that image in any manner other than for record keeping purposes.
To be completely honest, as far as I was aware we were using images in this segment from a database that we'd taken ourselves. (We are quite the bunch of talented photographers). The image from Lior, seems to be an exception that has slipped thru because its from someone who is an active photographer and the image isn't so terrible. Again, I understand this to be a mistake, and an exception.
-
What I would like to know is why a site which has REJECTEDan image feels it has the right to use that image in any manner other than for record keeping purposes.
To be completely honest, as far as I was aware we were using images in this segment from a database that we'd taken ourselves. (We are quite the bunch of talented photographers). The image from Lior, seems to be an exception that has slipped thru because its from someone who is an active photographer and the image isn't so terrible. Again, I understand this to be a mistake, and an exception.
How about the images which have identifiable people in them... do you get their consent to include them on the worst image section... sounds to me like a defamation action waiting to happen.
-
Lior, our apologies because there seems to have been a small error made here. Without wanting to kill any of the myth or controversy of Judge Ross, images are chosen so that they will not offend. That is, from contributors who haven't been active in 2 years. The chances that the original contributor will see the images are slim. And, then, in this case, it was a 'borderline' rejection (don't know exactly as i can't find the full-size original) and the reasons for rejection aren't apparent at preview size. I believe this was a mistake, and this is not the intended result of Judge Ross' picks.
EXCUSE ME????? Are you going to put MY photos on Judge Ross in 2 years, and that's okay because I likely won't see it? Show me what I signed giving you permission to do that. Posting a rejected photo on your commercial website is a violation of my copyright. Why don't you just come into my house and steal my television and take the car out of the garage while you are at it.
-
I just noticed that Crestock has one of my images in the worst picture section. (A picture that has in fact sold quite well on other sites.) I have never been asked for permission to use this picture, and would not have given permission if I had been asked.
I would like to know what recompense Crestock are going to offer for using my image without my permission.
-
I just noticed that Crestock has one of my images in the worst picture section. (A picture that has in fact sold quite well on other sites.) I have never been asked for permission to use this picture, and would not have given permission if I had been asked.
I would like to know what recompense Crestock are going to offer for using my image without my permission.
Please provide or PM a link of the image in question.
Thanks,
Josh - Crestock.com
-
... images are chosen so that they will not offend. That is, from contributors who haven't been active in 2 years. The chances that the original contributor will see the images are slim. ...
To be completely honest, as far as I was aware we were using images in this segment from a database that we'd taken ourselves.
Am I the only one who sees these two statements as contradicting one another?
-
Here it is:
https://www.crestock.com/todays-worst-image.aspx?id=327 (https://www.crestock.com/todays-worst-image.aspx?id=327)
-
... images are chosen so that they will not offend. That is, from contributors who haven't been active in 2 years. The chances that the original contributor will see the images are slim. ...
To be completely honest, as far as I was aware we were using images in this segment from a database that we'd taken ourselves.
Am I the only one who sees these two statements as contradicting one another?
Thats because I have never had any input into this segment. I'm still in the process of getting updated on whats happening here so I can answer appropriately.
-
Funny you should quote him, I thought some of your post's sounded very much like our old friend. In fact I was wondering if you were one in the same?
to quote a former poster who was banned from this forum, i';d love to c things from his point of view but i don't think i could get my head that far up my ass ;D
-
Here it is:
https://www.crestock.com/todays-worst-image.aspx?id=327 (https://www.crestock.com/todays-worst-image.aspx?id=327)
Most of the Judge Ross photos only really work as sets, the 'worst' contrasting the best. - If I'm not mistaken that particular image was contrasting a bowl of fresh fruit or something like that, so on it's own it's not that a bad photo as such, if you needed a photo of a rotten lemon that is, so it's a judgement call on the part of the inspector here that they couldn't see a context in which this would be useful.
I/we totally accept that this particular segment in this format may have outlived its original purpose, as a learning tool, to contrast the best of the current submissions with an opposing image that was less appropriate. This is becoming increasingly redundant as the standard of submissions have improved drastically since the early days.
I understand that the majority of these images were not sourced from rejected images but either produced or found elsewhere, some, but not all. From a legal point of view, the terms and conditions stipulate that we reserve the right to display any content uploaded on our site, obviously without making them available for download or sale in any way. "By uploading Content to www.crestock.com, the Supplier admits a non-exclusive licence to display the uploaded Content on Crestock's homepage (www.crestock.com)." Crestock in no regards wished to be economical with the truth and we see it as unfortunate if any rejected images have been used in this context (albeit anonymously), without the prior consent of the contributor. We consider this an obligation bourne out of courtesy, rather than a legal obligation.
While some people do find the 'worst image' feature quite entertaining, clearly the intention of Crestock is far removed from humiliating any photographer in any way. This is apparent as it would only be the owner of the photo who would be able to identify the image. There have been contributors in the past who have benefited from this compare and contrast approach of displaying images. However, i think, generally the level of ability of most readers on this forum tends to render this slightly less beneficial. And, i certainly think, that Crestock and the industry as a whole has moved past this and we will be looking to provide more stimulating and relevant content, in the very near future.
Thanks,
Josh - Crestock.com
-
Here it is:
https://www.crestock.com/todays-worst-image.aspx?id=327 (https://www.crestock.com/todays-worst-image.aspx?id=327)
While some people do find the 'worst image' feature quite entertaining, clearly the intention of Crestock is far removed from humiliating any photographer in any way. This is apparent as it would only be the owner of the photo who would be able to identify the image. There have been contributors in the past who have benefited from this compare and contrast approach of displaying images. However, i think, generally the level of ability of most readers on this forum tends to render this slightly less beneficial. And, i certainly think, that Crestock and the industry as a whole has moved past this and we will be looking to provide more stimulating and relevant content, in the very near future.
Thanks,
Josh - Crestock.com
Those who know me, know that I speak my mind and have been banned from more than one forum for doing so but it won't shut me up either as you can see.
I have no doubt that a lot people find Judge Ross's comments highly amusing but you've left out one very important caveat. It's humor at the expense of others.
The reality is, Judge Ross's condescending critique is borderline abusive at worst and misguided rubbish at best. None of the comments I have seen to date are in the slightest bit educational and from my perspective seem more designed to humiliate rather than educate.
For you to come on here and suggest otherwise is not only an affront to many people's intelligence but to go as far as to say they might not notice is only adding insult to injury.
For what it's worth, Judge Ross is a surefire way to alienate some of the v very best photographers on this forum. I don't claim to be one myself but if you think you can get away with satire at any level and without any regard for the reputations you are hurting well then you are sorely mistaken Mr. Josh.
-
No worries. Thank you for your well thought out opinions.
Josh Hodge
Director, Photographer Relations & Inspections
Crestock.com
-
Here it is:
https://www.crestock.com/todays-worst-image.aspx?id=327 (https://www.crestock.com/todays-worst-image.aspx?id=327)
Most of the Judge Ross photos only really work as sets, the 'worst' contrasting the best. - If I'm not mistaken that particular image was contrasting a bowl of fresh fruit or something like that,...
he seems to be judging the fruit not the photo.may be that's what he is good at:)
-
Josh,
I really do appreciate you taking the time to read the posts here and to reply, but...
At first I found all this rather amusing, but after reading what you had to say here, I was thinking again about it all and came to a conclusion that I would not want to take part in a site that treats it's contributors the way you do.
I find your site to be very arrogant, with nothing real to back it up with.
I will contact your support and ask to remove all of my images from your site.
-
I don't think this is the serious issue with crestock though. I don't mind if my photos end up worst of the day but paying us just $0.25 for a download is making me wonder why I am there. Other sites have raised their prices and have kept their buyers. Crestock need to correct this quick.
-
... I don't mind if my photos end up worst of the day but paying us just $0.25 for a download is making me wonder why I am there. ...
That's about how I feel, too.
Crestock is by far my lowest earner.
-
Those who know me, know that I speak my mind and have been banned from more than one forum for doing so but it won't shut me up either as you can see.
I can think of 3 you have been banned from. It made me laugh the way you disguised some of your posts but it was pretty obvious who you are. I was going to report you but there isn't much point as you will just register under another name. You really do post too much though LOL.
-
Those who know me, know that I speak my mind and have been banned from more than one forum for doing so but it won't shut me up either as you can see.
I can think of 3 you have been banned from. It made me laugh the way you disguised some of your posts but it was pretty obvious who you are. I was going to report you but there isn't much point as you will just register under another name. You really do post too much though LOL.
LOL trust me I'm not your worst enemy sharpshot but it was nice sniping at you undercover while it lasted ;D
-
Here it is:
https://www.crestock.com/todays-worst-image.aspx?id=327 (https://www.crestock.com/todays-worst-image.aspx?id=327)
While some people do find the 'worst image' feature quite entertaining, clearly the intention of Crestock is far removed from humiliating any photographer in any way. This is apparent as it would only be the owner of the photo who would be able to identify the image. There have been contributors in the past who have benefited from this compare and contrast approach of displaying images. However, i think, generally the level of ability of most readers on this forum tends to render this slightly less beneficial. And, i certainly think, that Crestock and the industry as a whole has moved past this and we will be looking to provide more stimulating and relevant content, in the very near future.
Thanks,
Josh - Crestock.com
Those who know me, know that I speak my mind and have been banned from more than one forum for doing so but it won't shut me up either as you can see.
I have no doubt that a lot people find Judge Ross's comments highly amusing but you've left out one very important caveat. It's humor at the expense of others.
The reality is, Judge Ross's condescending critique is borderline abusive at worst and misguided rubbish at best. None of the comments I have seen to date are in the slightest bit educational and from my perspective seem more designed to humiliate rather than educate.
For you to come on here and suggest otherwise is not only an affront to many people's intelligence but to go as far as to say they might not notice is only adding insult to injury.
For what it's worth, Judge Ross is a surefire way to alienate some of the v very best photographers on this forum. I don't claim to be one myself but if you think you can get away with satire at any level and without any regard for the reputations you are hurting well then you are sorely mistaken Mr. Josh.
Oh yes, we know you. Self-proclaimed speaker of minds, teller of truths, blah blah blahhhhh.
You've been banned from numerous forums probably not for speaking your mind, but for your abrasive method of delivering what's on your mind. It's unfortunate, because you occassionally make a good point, but few people will bother to take your point into consideration because it's usually delivered on the end of a sledge hammer to the side of the head.
Maybe some day you'll get it and learn to play nice with others.
-
Yeah well sometimes when you're delivering the goods they sometimes come with a rocket attached and that's why we have what's called freedom from censorship.
But I must say it's such a relief to be able to spell check again albeit short lived. Soooooo come on, let's get this over with Leaf. Delete me so I can alter my IP and have another go at that po-faced thespian over at Crestock.
-
But I must say it's such a relief to be able to spell check again.
You mean to tell me you're not rjmiz :o
Shame you got found out mate, forums are never the same without you.
-
But I must say it's such a relief to be able to spell check again.
You mean to tell me you're not rjmiz :o
Shame you got found out mate, forums are never the same without you.
Ahhh now RT you know me better than that. I didn't get found out. I just dropped loadza hints just to see if they were watching. And anyway Contakt annoyed the F**k out of me. His spelling and grammar were gawd awful. I mean who . writes like that anymore. He was a complete and utter moron but watch Paulybignuts jump all over me now ;D
-
Do you and MIZ get your medication from the same doctor?
-
Do you and MIZ get your medication from the same doctor?
Now now pauliebignuts, don't get nasty. Be the nice person that you so advocate because this could be a very clear case of the kettle calling the pot black.
-
Agreed, I started to put my images up to them but gave up uploading because mostly I just get 25c a DL. If they put this up to 45 or 50 I would probably continue to get my whole portfolio up with them.
... I don't mind if my photos end up worst of the day but paying us just $0.25 for a download is making me wonder why I am there. ...
That's about how I feel, too.
Crestock is by far my lowest earner.
-
While some people do find the 'worst image' feature quite entertaining, clearly the intention of Crestock is far removed from humiliating any photographer in any way. This is apparent as it would only be the owner of the photo who would be able to identify the image.
Are you kidding? Everyone has their own style and we can recognise each others work - and their copycats. You and I both know that Crestock rejects photos that sell hundreds or thousands of times elsewhere. You're telling me you don't think one of those won't be recognized? What if someone like... say Obama just commissioned one of JR's picks so that he can slap the crap photo on his busses, on his tv campaigns, his billboards and his print ads. Wouldn't JR's comments be great fodder for CNN and Entertainment tonight?
-
I'm glad this is back on topic but I think you've left out a very important reason why Judge Ross is there at all in the first place.
If this key feature is not educational and is not instructive then what is it there for other than to amuse and add stickiness to a site?
IMO, this humiliating circus act by Judge Ross, masquerading as honest critique, is a thinly disguised attempt to demonstrate to customers that they're on top of their game.
All of this at the expense of misfortunate snappers like Lior who are thrown to the Lions as a form of cheap entertainment but that's my take on it for what it's worth. Because why else would you dare alienate some contributors in such a horrendous fashion? It's because they are expendable that's why and are treated with nothing short of contempt.
The fact that Josh comes on here with what amounts to PR appointed spin is a tactic that we as a business specialise in. It is not to be applauded in any sense of the word and the fact that it's risky is par for the course. Sure it's difficult for any business to stick its neck out but I'd much prefer Josh put his hands up and said Judge Ross is potentially a mistake that we need to look at. That approach to me would be much more deserving of applause.
-
I think if Josh and gang didn't care what we thought, they wouldn't bother posting on this or any other forum. The fact that he posts here is actual proof that they are listening to and care about the opinions of the photographers.
Not many of the sites take the time (and risk) to comment and give feedback here. I am very appreciative of the ones who do.
-
Leaf, with all due respect, I think it's just "Josh" and not the gang. I love the fact that he is very "present" on the board vs. the majority of the sites, but the CS model just aint workin'. It's the only site that I've had "1" payout in 1.75 years ( had 2 at FP in that same period...which isn't saying much). It started off strong but is postioned to be the next LO. If they cannot pony up the minimal payout increases that the rest of the sites have done, it likely means they simply cannot afford it which does not bode well for their future. I'll personally hire Josh if you guys want to start our own stock agency :P
-
Are you kidding? Everyone has their own style and we can recognise each others work - and their copycats. You and I both know that Crestock rejects photos that sell hundreds or thousands of times elsewhere. You're telling me you don't think one of those won't be recognized? What if someone like... say Obama just commissioned one of JR's picks so that he can slap the crap photo on his busses, on his tv campaigns, his billboards and his print ads. Wouldn't JR's comments be great fodder for CNN and Entertainment tonight?
Please consider this statement in its right context. Take another look at Judge Ross' worst picks of the day and ask yourself why a politician running one of the most slick (expensive) election campaigns, ever, would use any of these images. In the current market, we can't justify the approval of any of these images.
Sure it's difficult for any business to stick its neck out but I'd much prefer Josh put his hands up and said Judge Ross is potentially a mistake that we need to look at.
I thought the apologising for a couple of errors would have said this. Judge Ross is potentially a mistake that we are actively looking at. There is a 'stickiness' to him, and he may just need a makeover and a shot of helpfulness.
Its not all PR, me being here. I've had stacks of PMs from photographers wanting help with one thing or another.
Not many of the sites take the time (and risk) to comment and give feedback here. I am very appreciative of the ones who do.
Its possible that the other sites are much wiser in this regard.
Leaf, with all due respect, I think it's just "Josh" and not the gang. I love the fact that he is very "present" on the board vs. the majority of the sites, but the CS model just aint workin'. It's the only site that I've had "1" payout in 1.75 years ( had 2 at FP in that same period...which isn't saying much). It started off strong but is postioned to be the next LO. If they cannot pony up the minimal payout increases that the rest of the sites have done, it likely means they simply cannot afford it which does not bode well for their future. I'll personally hire Josh if you guys want to start our own stock agency :P
We are not the next Lucky Oliver. Their costs were higher than their revenue in an expanding market, for them it was a question of survival. We invest everything in expansion and marketing, ensuring a larger customer base and higher sales.
I've been warned against excessive forum activity. It would appear that there is a religion of 'down with the stock sites', which is a little counter-productive to say the least when there are individuals spending millions on marketing your images for you. We hope that people's faith in us will not be reflected in forum activity, but rather in our abilities to handle uploaded images and to sell them.
All the best
-
Not many of the sites take the time (and risk) to comment and give feedback here. I am very appreciative of the ones who do.
[/quote author=josh]
Its possible that the other sites are much wiser in this regard.
That is wholly inaccurate. I can understand Leaf's appreciation that people like yourself turn-up as its inadvertently an endorsement of the popularity of the site but I'm not so convinced that there's any risk involved.
Plenty of other MS spokespersons have picked up the sword and shield on MSG and survived to tell the tale but not surprisingly there's a common theme amongst all of you.
You all seem to be firefighting! You've either alienated your contributor database as we've witnessed here to date or you're struggling on the revenue front. In fact I would go as far as to say; that if you're even thinking of running an MS site in the future come on here first, pour yourself a good strong brew and spend a good day reading the comments because they are invaluable.
Without laboring the issue, I think it's difficult enough as it is to run an MS site without pissing off your suppliers on several fronts. Crestock have managed to do so with extraordinary speed and Judge Ross is a prime example of someone who needs to be locked up and thrown in his own dungeon.
I've been warned against excessive forum activity. It would appear that there is a religion of 'down with the stock sites', which is a little counter-productive to say the least when there are individuals spending millions on marketing your images for you. We hope that people's faith in us will not be reflected in forum activity, but rather in our abilities to handle uploaded images and to sell them.
All the best
This conspiracy theory you've come up with is pure self-serving hyperbole. I've seen it happen time and time again, whenever a business is in a corner paint yourself as a victim and illicit the sympathy vote to get the voters back on side. No such luck Josh. That's not going to wash with anyone. The majority of the folk on here are very supportive of their main revenue generators but they are very unforgiving when you humiliate people unnecessarily or start acting the maggot like Crestock have been doing lately.
To suggest that this is an endemic, forum driven attack on MS sites in general is pure baloney and one of the oldest tricks in the book. You're going to have to go back and brush up on your PR skills before trying to pull that one because it is just too transparent.
-
there are individuals spending millions on marketing your images for you.
Let me understand you correctly here, because the point you make above has all sorts of guilt bombs attached to it and that is you and your cohorts are spending an inordinate amount of money for our benefit?
Are you absolutely sure you guys are not the main beneficiary of that multi-million euro spend you're talking about?
Because as far as I can see, contributors are making a derisory amount from each image you sell. So maybe you might clear that up for us if you would be so kind because I'd hate to think all those millions were being spent for our benefit and we weren't showing enough appreciation?
-
For me Microstock is a business albeit a small one so far. And I am not anti any site or individual associated with it.
Simply put its about return on investment (both time and money)
I submit to SS, IS, DT, FT, 123RF - there is a good Return on Investment for me from these, I may not like some of the policies or application thereof but as I understand them more I learn to adjust accordingly.
As I have already edited my images and added IPTC data adding to another site is relatively easy but it is nevertheless an investment of time (however small) so unless a site is going to give me a return (sales) then its not worth my while contributing.
Nothing in this thread is convincing me that the time will be small or the returns big.
That Josh is where you need to convince me
Its not anti any site bias or anti Crestock bias just pragmatism pure and simple ...
-
Contakt,
I can't do Crestock the disservice of dedicating any more of their time to a discussion that seems to have lost any direction. I represent a professional organization, and, therefore am obligated to handle myself in as professional manner as I can. I don't know who you are so this discussion ends here. In the clear and simple terms, everything is re-invested into Crestock and its sustainable growth.
Michaelo, the amount of return you will receive is dependent on a lot of variable factors, not least of all, the commercial appeal of your images. Crestock has been shown to outperform a couple of other sites in the Big 6, but, again this is different for everybody. An example of this is that Yuri claims we're a top 5/6 performer for him, while Andres Rodriguez reports much steadier results. We're on a constant drive to raise sales all the way up until the end of this year and we have a plan of growth in place, which, only 1 month in, is yielding some very positive results.
Feel free to contact me personally if you'd like to some help or advice on getting your images online.
All the best,
Josh Hodge - Crestock.com
-
Crestock has some way to catch up with the big 7 for me but apart from earnings, I like everything about the site and the way they are advertising it. The problem is we all judge sites by the amount of money we make and at the moment this isn't enough to keep all of us interested.
I hope crestock has a good year and makes lots of progress but after taking a gamble with LO, I am now more inclined to spend my time on the higher earning sites. A big increase in the subscription commission might get me interested again.
-
Josh, one question, does Yuri and Andresr get the same 25 cent subscription commission than anyone else?
I just ask, because it seemed to be that at least Yuri does not like the low subscription commission from shutterstock which is higher than Crestocks.
And I somehow never heard him complaining anything about the Crestock commission. Maybe someone else can clarify.
Thanks!
-
Contakt,
I can't do Crestock the disservice of dedicating any more of their time to a discussion that seems to have lost any direction. I represent a professional organization, and, therefore am obligated to handle myself in as professional manner as I can. I don't know who you are so this discussion ends here. In the clear and simple terms, everything is re-invested into Crestock and its sustainable growth.
The discussion most certainly has not lost direction, it's just not going the direction you want it to go hence your rapid exit. You've painted yourself into a corner by claiming you are doing a great service for photographers when in actual fact it is Crestock who are the main beneficiaries.
You have not addressed that question and I'm not in the slightest bit surprised you did not because let's face it, you've been made to look extremely foolish with your exaggerated claims of munificence.
As to who I am? I'm sorry I fail to see the relevance of that question or why that's important when it comes to addressing some of the key issues raised here?
That aside, your claim that "everything is re-invested into Crestock and its sustainable growth," is hardly adequate an explanation as to why you deliver one of the lowest rates of return to its contributors and then have the temerity to think they should thank you for exploiting their hard-earned work.
I'm sorry Mr. Josh, you haven't represented your brand well on here and judging by your hasty departure you have no intention of answering my questions either.
IMO, you have engaged in what amounts to little more than a highly polished whitewash. But since we're both in the business of PR, trying to exploit photographers with lousy returns and then humiliating them in the same breath requires a little bit more than amateur PR sound-bytes.
Try raising your overall returns and issuing a public apology to those you've humiliated and then see if you can gain some new found respect among those members that Judge Ross has so sadistically vilified.
-
Crestock has some way to catch up with the big 7 for me but apart from earnings, I like everything about the site and the way they are advertising it. The problem is we all judge sites by the amount of money we make and at the moment this isn't enough to keep all of us interested.
I hope crestock has a good year and makes lots of progress but after taking a gamble with LO, I am now more inclined to spend my time on the higher earning sites. A big increase in the subscription commission might get me interested again.
The amount of money you make and amount of sales being generated is a fair way of judging a site. As we've discussed before, Crestock is currently placing efforts into raising sales significantly and lets hope that will spark your interest again in the very near future.
Josh, one question, does Yuri and Andresr get the same 25 cent subscription commission than anyone else?
I just ask, because it seemed to be that at least Yuri does not like the low subscription commission from shutterstock which is higher than Crestocks.
And I somehow never heard him complaining anything about the Crestock commission. Maybe someone else can clarify.
Thanks!
Yes, he does. Yuri has expressed his concerns to us, but, I understand, is satisfied that we would first look to raise sales and our customer base.
Thanks!