MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "Confidential" email from Dreamstime  (Read 40680 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

farbled

« Reply #325 on: June 01, 2014, 13:15 »
+8
I'm a hobbyist/part time stock shooter. The inference that I'm just in it for a few dollars is insulting. I have plenty to lose besides money. Lumping everyone together as one "type" is inherently a stupid thing to do. Its like saying there is only one type of buyer, one type of agency and one type of stock photo.

Sorry, Farbled. I was just responding to Ethan. Even for people who don't rely on the income still pour a lot of heart and soul into their images. And let's face it, uploading and keywording isn't a very pleasurable experience; it can only be called "work."

E

No worries at all, my reply was to the post before yours and I appreciate the sentiment. I just hate stupid assumptions about a whole group based on one or two people's actions. Point of fact I am currently on only three stock sites, SS, DT and one other very small agency. Plus my Sym sites. I want to get my collections back under my own control, but that 6 month thing at DT is hampering me. But I'm getting there, its now a small collection left there.

Like you, I will do what is best for me. I don't like herd mentality, I don't like bandwagons. If the DPC club was a good thing for me, then sure. And it very well could be for my old non sellers. But its not, so I am not in it, or on FT for that matter. Same thing with Sym, love the platform, lukewarm about the networks. My work, my control over where and how I use it. Anyone who tells me otherwise can um, well I cant say it here. :)

When people start saying collective and I see how they treat people not yet in it, I really want no part of it. Reminds me of being in a union and how they would call us at night at home to ensure we voted the "right" way on things.

Other people here have commented on how adversarial its gotten here, and I agree. I think I will extend my vacation from micros to include forums. Have a great summer!


ethan

« Reply #326 on: June 01, 2014, 13:41 »
-1
I'm a hobbyist/part time stock shooter. The inference that I'm just in it for a few dollars is insulting. I have plenty to lose besides money. Lumping everyone together as one "type" is inherently a stupid thing to do. Its like saying there is only one type of buyer, one type of agency and one type of stock photo.

Sorry, Farbled. I was just responding to Ethan. Even for people who don't rely on the income still pour a lot of heart and soul into their images. And let's face it, uploading and keywording isn't a very pleasurable experience; it can only be called "work."

E

No worries at all, my reply was to the post before yours and I appreciate the sentiment. I just hate stupid assumptions about a whole group based on one or two people's actions. Point of fact I am currently on only three stock sites, SS, DT and one other very small agency. Plus my Sym sites. I want to get my collections back under my own control, but that 6 month thing at DT is hampering me. But I'm getting there, its now a small collection left there.

Like you, I will do what is best for me. I don't like herd mentality, I don't like bandwagons. . Anyone who tells me otherwise can um, well I cant say it here. :)

When people start saying collective and I see how they treat people not yet in it, I really want no part of it. Reminds me of being in a union and how they would call us at night at home to ensure we voted the "right" way on things.


Your definitely a guy I'd want watching my back if we were in a trench.

Way to go.

:)


farbled

« Reply #327 on: June 01, 2014, 13:49 »
0
I'm a hobbyist/part time stock shooter. The inference that I'm just in it for a few dollars is insulting. I have plenty to lose besides money. Lumping everyone together as one "type" is inherently a stupid thing to do. Its like saying there is only one type of buyer, one type of agency and one type of stock photo.

Sorry, Farbled. I was just responding to Ethan. Even for people who don't rely on the income still pour a lot of heart and soul into their images. And let's face it, uploading and keywording isn't a very pleasurable experience; it can only be called "work."

E

No worries at all, my reply was to the post before yours and I appreciate the sentiment. I just hate stupid assumptions about a whole group based on one or two people's actions. Point of fact I am currently on only three stock sites, SS, DT and one other very small agency. Plus my Sym sites. I want to get my collections back under my own control, but that 6 month thing at DT is hampering me. But I'm getting there, its now a small collection left there.

Like you, I will do what is best for me. I don't like herd mentality, I don't like bandwagons. . Anyone who tells me otherwise can um, well I cant say it here. :)

When people start saying collective and I see how they treat people not yet in it, I really want no part of it. Reminds me of being in a union and how they would call us at night at home to ensure we voted the "right" way on things.


Your definitely a guy I'd want watching my back if we were in a trench.

Way to go.

:)
Thank you, if that's the conclusion you draw, well, not much else to be said. And now I'm really out. Thanks for proving my point.

ethan

« Reply #328 on: June 01, 2014, 14:07 »
0
I'm a hobbyist/part time stock shooter. The inference that I'm just in it for a few dollars is insulting. I have plenty to lose besides money. Lumping everyone together as one "type" is inherently a stupid thing to do. Its like saying there is only one type of buyer, one type of agency and one type of stock photo.

Sorry, Farbled. I was just responding to Ethan. Even for people who don't rely on the income still pour a lot of heart and soul into their images. And let's face it, uploading and keywording isn't a very pleasurable experience; it can only be called "work."

E

No worries at all, my reply was to the post before yours and I appreciate the sentiment. I just hate stupid assumptions about a whole group based on one or two people's actions. Point of fact I am currently on only three stock sites, SS, DT and one other very small agency. Plus my Sym sites. I want to get my collections back under my own control, but that 6 month thing at DT is hampering me. But I'm getting there, its now a small collection left there.

Like you, I will do what is best for me. I don't like herd mentality, I don't like bandwagons. . Anyone who tells me otherwise can um, well I cant say it here. :)

When people start saying collective and I see how they treat people not yet in it, I really want no part of it. Reminds me of being in a union and how they would call us at night at home to ensure we voted the "right" way on things.


Your definitely a guy I'd want watching my back if we were in a trench.

Way to go.

:)
Thank you, if that's the conclusion you draw, well, not much else to be said. And now I'm really out. Thanks for proving my point.

No, it's probably the conclusion that most uninterested observers (like me) would draw.

Permit me to ask you a question, Straight up.

Why would a partner 'an exciting potential revenue partner' approach a mid tier (at best) to low middle tier agency like Dreamstime with a 'exciting opportunity/joint venture beta test' ?

Why not Getty or Shutterstock?

The two leading worldwide agencies.

Why a mid-low tier agency (an agency desperate for a 'good news item to announce and compete with a bottom feeder like FT).

Think about it.

Why?

Because it's worthless ?

They'll make money and DT will make money but not you.

Why?

You gave away your stuff for free.

Mull over that my friend, mull over that.

I'm out too :)



farbled

« Reply #329 on: June 01, 2014, 14:55 »
+4
Straight answer, there could by a myriad of reasons why someone would approach a not-quite top selling agency. I couldn't presume to guess. Conflict of interest, other partnerships, previous successful deals, who the heck knows?

But I do like the assumptions. Keep them coming. You've been wrong with pretty much all of them so far. I have never, ever given an image away for free through an agency, please stop the insinuation that I do. Never have, never will unless its done behind my back. So be a little bit more careful with "you gave" stuff. Its not rooted in any facts.

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #330 on: June 01, 2014, 15:05 »
+10
Well, after reading everything here and mulling it over, I decided to take a close look at my images that DT "selected" to see if there was any sort of pattern I could distinguish.  I suppose my case would only apply to someone else who had a relatively large number of images selected, say 10 or more.  What I found, for me at least, was the images seemed to represent a wide variety of styles from close-up to macro to backgrounds to Photoshop compositing to scenics to any of a large number of other styles.  In other words, a selection showing a wide variety of what is available on DT.  This makes sense in a beta test for a new customer (or whatever it is).  Of course this would have to be combined with other contributor's images to show the full breadth of DT's offering.  I don't do vectors or illustrations so don't know if any of that may have been included as well.

As to the images themselves, there's really only one that I would be reluctant to include.  It has had over 500 sales across all agencies along with multiple EL's, including an EL on DT.  Of the others, they have all sold only in the single digits or not at all on DT and have relatively low sales numbers elsewhere (except for one that has had 100+ sales, mostly at SS).

Having worked in the "real" business world for over 50 years, much of it as an executive for a multi-national corporation, I know the idea of giving away samples of one's product for a limited time is a proven way to encourage people to try and then buy your product(s).  This appears to be the approach DT is taking, although on a more limited scale.  It is always a risk that people may not like your product and not purchase it, but that's a normal risk of any business.  It's a form of marketing.  So long as it is limited in scope and duration, that is usually considered an acceptable cost of doing business.

Is there a downside to this action, of course.  However the potential upside appears to be greater (based on the limited information we have so far been provided).  Accordingly I've decided to remain opted in in the anticipation that DT, who knows their market much better than any of us, is correct in their assessment that the upside potential warrants this short-term beta test.  This is within my personal risk tolerance, however it may not be within the risk tolerance of others and they are perfectly correct in opting out.

« Reply #331 on: June 01, 2014, 15:15 »
+9
The main problem is the lack of a clear definition of the scope and duration.
If DT could be a little less vague I am sure lots more people, including myself, would be more willing to support them.
I am afraid that actually giving something for an unspecified time for an unspecified use in the hope of MAYBE getting something in return at some unspecified possible future date does not sound very appealing to me.

ShazamImages

  • ShazamImages.com
« Reply #332 on: June 01, 2014, 15:56 »
+11
Having worked in the "real" business world for over 50 years, much of it as an executive for a multi-national corporation, I know the idea of giving away samples of one's product for a limited time is a proven way to encourage people to try and then buy your product(s).  This appears to be the approach DT is taking, although on a more limited scale.

But DT isn't giving their products away, they want to give our products away.

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #333 on: June 01, 2014, 16:32 »
+3
Having worked in the "real" business world for over 50 years, much of it as an executive for a multi-national corporation, I know the idea of giving away samples of one's product for a limited time is a proven way to encourage people to try and then buy your product(s).  This appears to be the approach DT is taking, although on a more limited scale.

But DT isn't giving their products away, they want to give our products away.

Actually those who opt in are giving their products away, not DT.  DT has made an offer that if we choose to allow certain images to be put up for free for a limited period of time, in this case "about" a week or two, we stand a chance of improving our sales.  Thus if someone allows this to happen, then they are offering their product and DT is only the venue through which the product is offered.  DT has made it possible to opt out of this (although they could have done a much better job in this regards) so the choice is now ours to make.  This is no different from someone like, oh say, COSTCO giving away samples at lunch time of various edible products.  Some people like the sample sufficiently to go and purchase the entire package.  Others make it a point to show up at COSTCO every day a noon to get what amounts to a free lunch.  Who says there's no such thing as a free lunch?  :P

The choice is yours to make.  Do you want to allow a limited number of your images to be offered for free for a limited time in the hopes of increasing your cash flow or not.  Is it a risk ... yes.  Is it guaranteed ... no.  But in the end only you can make that decision and therefor you, and not DT, are the one offering your images.  And BTW, there is no guarantee that any image you may agree to offer may be taken.  In this instance, there seems to be only one large customer and they may not like or have need for whatever image(s) any individual contributor agrees to have offered.  Be nice to know how each image fared in this, but I doubt we'll ever know.  If you offered something for free and nobody wanted it, even for free, would you really want to know?

« Reply #334 on: June 01, 2014, 16:54 »
+1
Having worked in the "real" business world for over 50 years, much of it as an executive for a multi-national corporation, I know the idea of giving away samples of one's product for a limited time is a proven way to encourage people to try and then buy your product(s).  This appears to be the approach DT is taking, although on a more limited scale.

But DT isn't giving their products away, they want to give our products away.

Actually those who opt in are giving their products away, not DT.  DT has made an offer that if we choose to allow certain images to be put up for free for a limited period of time, in this case "about" a week or two, we stand a chance of improving our sales.  Thus if someone allows this to happen, then they are offering their product and DT is only the venue through which the product is offered.  DT has made it possible to opt out of this (although they could have done a much better job in this regards) so the choice is now ours to make.  This is no different from someone like, oh say, COSTCO giving away samples at lunch time of various edible products.  Some people like the sample sufficiently to go and purchase the entire package.  Others make it a point to show up at COSTCO every day a noon to get what amounts to a free lunch.  Who says there's no such thing as a free lunch?  :P

The choice is yours to make.  Do you want to allow a limited number of your images to be offered for free for a limited time in the hopes of increasing your cash flow or not.  Is it a risk ... yes.  Is it guaranteed ... no.  But in the end only you can make that decision and therefor you, and not DT, are the one offering your images.  And BTW, there is no guarantee that any image you may agree to offer may be taken.  In this instance, there seems to be only one large customer and they may not like or have need for whatever image(s) any individual contributor agrees to have offered.  Be nice to know how each image fared in this, but I doubt we'll ever know.  If you offered something for free and nobody wanted it, even for free, would you really want to know?

Like I said a couple of time before, yes, you can opt out, but you must opt out everything from every other partner site.  These opt outs will affect your sales. Why? Because your images move up in rank the more they sell, even if it's a sub sale.  So while we do have the option to opt out, we don't have the option to opt out of ONLY that scheme. They force the contributor to hurt their own sales in a way that makes it hard to opt out at all.  Taking this a step further, let's assume they move forward with this program and it is another FT kind of thing where we get peanuts for commission. And DT them opts in all of our content and the only way out is a global opt out. That wouldn't be a good scenario and who's fault would that be? Now, I would venture to guess that DT will create a custom opt out if this thing moves forward. I think they are fair enough to do that. That's my personal opinion, of course.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2014, 17:05 by Mantis »

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #335 on: June 01, 2014, 17:22 »
+3
@ Mantis:  I completely agree with you.  That's why I commented that DT could have done a better job insofar as their opt out was concerned.  Opting out of everything is really the wrong way to approach this.  Opting out of this test only would have been the correct thing to do.  Opting out individual images would be even better, but that's not likely to happen.  I also agree that, in my opinion, DT has shown themselves to be a fair agency and won't set up a scenario such as FT or DP.  Never-the-less, it is up to us to take the old saying to heart "Trust but verify."  Watch what they do and act accordingly.  If all goes well, we will be winners.  If it doesn't then we have other courses of action open to us.  Let's just hope it doesn't come to that.

« Reply #336 on: June 01, 2014, 17:35 »
0
@ Mantis:  I completely agree with you.  That's why I commented that DT could have done a better job insofar as their opt out was concerned.  Opting out of everything is really the wrong way to approach this.  Opting out of this test only would have been the correct thing to do.  Opting out individual images would be even better, but that's not likely to happen.  I also agree that, in my opinion, DT has shown themselves to be a fair agency and won't set up a scenario such as FT or DP.  Never-the-less, it is up to us to take the old saying to heart "Trust but verify."  Watch what they do and act accordingly.  If all goes well, we will be winners.  If it doesn't then we have other courses of action open to us.  Let's just hope it doesn't come to that.

Right.  I do think they will work favorably with us, too.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #337 on: June 01, 2014, 18:24 »
0
(forgive me, I didn't read all 14 pages of this thread, this may have been already said)

don't DT already have a free images section? why not use those?

« Reply #338 on: June 01, 2014, 18:40 »
+2
(forgive me, I didn't read all 14 pages of this thread, this may have been already said)

don't DT already have a free images section? why not use those?

Yes that has been brought up.  Sounds like they wanted to hand pick hi-power images specifically for this test.

PureArt

  • UK
« Reply #339 on: June 01, 2014, 19:04 »
+4
... DT has made it possible to opt out of this (although they could have done a much better job in this regards) ...

DT has to make it "opt in" deal, not "opt out". And, of course, not "opt out in 5 days"+"opt out from partner sales all together".

"Opt-in" is the only fair way. Fotolia took all our images to DPC and then (as a result of the boycott) offered that hidden and tricky "opt out" link. And we clearly stated to Fotolia that it was a wrong way to do the things. I am surprised that DreamsTime did not learn that lesson.

Learn from the mistakes of others." (c) Eleanor Roosevelt

Yes, DT sent a notification (unlike Fotolia). But "opt in" would be much better. "Click this link and those images will be added to the experiment." is it so difficult?

« Reply #340 on: June 01, 2014, 19:06 »
+9
Well, I think the period when you could opt out of this scheme is now over - either you are in or out.

The question is, if we now opt back in to the partner programme, will we remain opted out of the giveaway scheme? Does anybody know?

« Reply #341 on: June 01, 2014, 19:12 »
+3
Sounds like they wanted to hand pick hi-power images specifically for this test.

4 from the 11 pictures they have picked from my portfolio have 0 downloads so I would say they are looking for subjects instead of downloads

« Reply #342 on: June 01, 2014, 19:14 »
0
Well, I think the period when you could opt out of this scheme is now over - either you are in or out.

The question is, if we now opt back in to the partner programme, will we remain opted out of the giveaway scheme? Does anybody know?


I would say "you" would be out

If you are interested in participating, there is nothing more for you to do. The selected images from your library will be included in the pilot program unless you do not wish to participate. If you choose not to participate in this beta test program, you may remove your images from the program by disabling your participation in the Dreamstime Alliances program within the next 5 days (http://www.dreamstime.com/alliances).

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #343 on: June 01, 2014, 19:24 »
+8


As to the images themselves, there's really only one that I would be reluctant to include.  It has had over 500 sales across all agencies along with multiple EL's, including an EL on DT.  Of the others, they have all sold only in the single digits or not at all on DT and have relatively low sales numbers elsewhere (except for one that has had 100+ sales, mostly at SS).

ditto, I had a look and there is a broad range of stuff included, and one is a best seller but the rest not so much, and two that are SIMILAR!! omg. how could they.

I'd like to ask DT if staff are also working for free to roll out this project? Not just a little bit of overtime for free, completely for free, with a hint of a promise that maybe they'll get paid.

« Reply #344 on: June 02, 2014, 04:28 »
+1
Alea iacta est The die is cast

Time is up and People have made their decisions. I for one will risk 10 image for this experiment.

The elephant in the room, what if:


The trial is a success and increased earnings is the result.
I respect those who want nothing to do with DT and deleted their entire portfolio.
But those who didn't want to Risk their images, how many will then want to be part of the new successful Alliance?
So goes comradeship . . . . .


For those in Munich, Germany:

I'm involved in an Exhibition of Painting, Film, Sculpture, Photography at the Mohr Villa.
Stop by for a glass of wine and we can talk trash . . . .
Mohr-Villa, Situlistr. 75, Mnchen-Freimann
Vernissage: Freitag 6. Juni 2014, 19 22 Uhr
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 04:45 by etienjones »

« Reply #345 on: June 02, 2014, 05:54 »
+3

The elephant in the room, what if:


The trial is a success and increased earnings is the result.
I respect those who want nothing to do with DT and deleted their entire portfolio.
But those who didn't want to Risk their images, how many will then want to be part of the new successful Alliance?
So goes comradeship . . . . .


It's a very small elephant.  Once I hear what the project involves I will decide what to do.

Another small elephant (making a Pygmy Elephant herd in the room, I suppose) would be what would the participants do if the trial is a success and then they discover it's the sort of programme they never wanted to be involved in in the first place?

All will become clear in a few weeks' or months' time, I suppose.

« Reply #346 on: June 02, 2014, 06:03 »
+1

The elephant in the room, what if:


The trial is a success and increased earnings is the result.
I respect those who want nothing to do with DT and deleted their entire portfolio.
But those who didn't want to Risk their images, how many will then want to be part of the new successful Alliance?
So goes comradeship . . . . .


It's a very small elephant.  Once I hear what the project involves I will decide what to do.

Another small elephant (making a Pygmy Elephant herd in the room, I suppose) would be what would the participants do if the trial is a success and then they discover it's the sort of programme they never wanted to be involved in in the first place?

All will become clear in a few weeks' or months' time, I suppose.

That would be the time I would opt-out, but hell, that's just me . . . . .

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #347 on: June 02, 2014, 06:24 »
+7
Alea iacta est The die is cast

Time is up and People have made their decisions. I for one will risk 10 image for this experiment.

The elephant in the room, what if:


The trial is a success and increased earnings is the result.
I respect those who want nothing to do with DT and deleted their entire portfolio.
But those who didn't want to Risk their images, how many will then want to be part of the new successful Alliance?
So goes comradeship . . . . .


If the alliance is successful, I want to be part of it. But I consider it very fair that, given the little info we received and the risks involved, I don't want to be a guinea pig for their experiments. At least not for free.

« Reply #348 on: June 02, 2014, 07:40 »
+3
I won't give up (opt-out) because I am "the chosen one", just a few of us are involved in this project! Elite of elites!
We are the best, we are "delta force" of stock industry, whatever you talk negatively about it!

 :o 8) ??? ::) :P

 ;D ;D ;D ;)
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 07:43 by borg »

« Reply #349 on: June 02, 2014, 14:01 »
+1
Yes, we are!
 ;D ;D ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
125 Replies
28528 Views
Last post June 07, 2008, 02:48
by Microbius
96 Replies
26487 Views
Last post July 12, 2008, 11:31
by Pixel-Pizzazz
6 Replies
3900 Views
Last post November 24, 2011, 04:51
by StockCube
13 Replies
2212 Views
Last post July 14, 2016, 04:18
by SpaceStockFootage
2 Replies
2731 Views
Last post July 14, 2016, 00:42
by Chichikov

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results