Author Topic: oh, the humiliation... (Read 23405 times)

Contakt · « **Reply #50 on:** April 29, 2008, 12:33 »

Quote from: RT on April 29, 2008, 12:29

Quote from: Contakt on April 29, 2008, 12:19
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

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

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #51 on:** April 29, 2008, 13:07 »

Do you and MIZ get your medication from the same doctor?

Contakt · « **Reply #52 on:** April 29, 2008, 13:49 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on April 29, 2008, 13:07

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.

fotografer · « **Reply #53 on:** April 29, 2008, 14:05 »

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.

Quote from: sharply_done on April 29, 2008, 12:03

Quote from: sharpshot on April 29, 2008, 11:51
... 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.

Pixart · « **Reply #54 on:** April 29, 2008, 14:38 »

Quote from: josh_crestock on April 29, 2008, 09:58

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?

Contakt · « **Reply #55 on:** April 29, 2008, 15:12 »

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.

leaf · « **Reply #56 on:** April 29, 2008, 15:17 »

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.

anonymous · « **Reply #57 on:** April 30, 2008, 00:00 »

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

josh_crestock · « **Reply #58 on:** April 30, 2008, 02:13 »

Quote from: Pixart on April 29, 2008, 14:38

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.

Quote from: Contakt on April 29, 2008, 15:12

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.

Quote from: leaf on April 29, 2008, 15:17

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.

Quote from: anonymous on April 30, 2008, 00:00

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

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

Contakt · « **Reply #59 on:** April 30, 2008, 02:59 »

Quote from: leaf on April 29, 2008, 15:17

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.

Quote from: josh

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.

Contakt · « **Reply #60 on:** April 30, 2008, 07:08 »

Quote from: josh

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?

michealo · « **Reply #61 on:** April 30, 2008, 07:36 »

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 ...

josh_crestock · « **Reply #62 on:** April 30, 2008, 08:05 »

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

sharpshot · « **Reply #63 on:** April 30, 2008, 08:33 »

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.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #64 on:** April 30, 2008, 08:38 »

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 · « **Reply #65 on:** April 30, 2008, 09:22 »

Quote from: josh_crestock on April 30, 2008, 08:05

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.

josh_crestock · « **Reply #66 on:** April 30, 2008, 09:58 »

Quote from: sharpshot on April 30, 2008, 08:33

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.

Quote from: Freezingpictures

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!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: oh, the humiliation... (Read 23405 times)

Contakt

PaulieWalnuts

Contakt

fotografer

Pixart

Contakt

leaf

anonymous

josh_crestock

Contakt

Contakt

michealo

josh_crestock

sharpshot

Freezingpictures

Contakt

josh_crestock

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors