MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: heywoody on July 29, 2011, 13:38
-
Rarely see anything positive posted - wondering what folks think. Really aimed at non-exclusives as less likely to be institutionalised....
-
Nope, nothing.
Funny to think that if you had asked me two/ three years ago they were my favorite agency
-
How about a back-handed compliment. The P+ program is preventing my earnings from falling quite so fast.
-
iStock's actions are what I think they should be judged by - what can they deliver in monthly earnings from my portfolio. My opinion of them rises and falls (mostly the latter of late) with those numbers.
-
Yes, it is a very good cage for all the exclusives that were lured there, once you're in, it is not easy to break out.
Less competition for us in the real-world, that is a positive effect that IS has on the stock market.
-
Not me.
-
Not so sure it is a good word but ... are they really any different than the rest? Is there really a dimes worth of difference? Am I more likely to make money there than at other sites?
I think the answer to that last question might be a "good word." :P
-
Declining
-
The best I can think of is that they so pissed me off with the dramatic cut in my royalties that I no longer have to care about their infuriating upload process or their equally infuriating reviewers. And not uploading hasn't cost me all that much; my revenue there is down 24.2% year on year, only a little worse than the 20% more they took for themselves.
-
Well... (as a small fish / slow producer)
IS is where I make the most money.
I like their reviewing, which seems much more human than other places.
I have learned a lot from IS, being a contributor there.
-
Less competition for us in the real-world, that is a positive effect that IS has on the stock market.
That's the only good thing I can think of, otherwise I think they're pathetic.
-
as much as I hate to say it, it doesn't look like their exclusives are suffering too much
http://blog.microstockgroup.com/microstock-income-vs-portfolio-size/ (http://blog.microstockgroup.com/microstock-income-vs-portfolio-size/)
-
When you create a two-class business, with special privileges for an elite and an underclass that is repeatedly discriminated against, I think it is inevitable that the lower-class citizens will start getting a bit resentful. It doesn't really matter that you can choose which class to join, the sense of being snubbed is still there with each widening of the gap.
The company is still a very important source of income for me, despite the lousy treatment it repeatedly dishes out.
-
The best I can think of is that they so pissed me off with the dramatic cut in my royalties that I no longer have to care about their infuriating upload process or their equally infuriating reviewers. And not uploading hasn't cost me all that much; my revenue there is down 24.2% year on year, only a little worse than the 20% more they took for themselves.
Exactly. iStock/Getty is the enemy of independents. They would like to put us all out of business and rule in a world where only their pets are allowed to make money.
I stopped uploading to IS many months ago. The drop in my revenues there has stabilized. But my revenues at other sites have greatly increased. I understand why some people are afraid to stop submitting to IS, but my experience is that buyers will find my images elsewhere, and in the long run I will make more money, and save a lot of time - it used to take me almost as long to submit to IS as to upload to all the other agencies put together. We independents should stop feeding the hand that bites us. Stop submitting to IS, and we independents will all be better off in the long run.
-
Yes, I got an EL this week :P
-
I can't resist a challenge... ;)
Positive is that the P+ program has improved my earnings quite a bit. I'll save the "but..." for another thread, since you only want positive comments here :)
-
PS: I did open a ticket about the length of time since my last download and had a response in a reasonable time ... and, got sales within an hour of submitting the ticket. ??? ;D
PPS: They are not the only agency catering to exclusives.
-
Really aimed at non-exclusives as less likely to be institutionalised....
Wow, insulting right from the start.
-
had a good month there but it is always going up and down.. I have been uploading for a "long time", they are far from dropping to 3rd place so there is still hope, I am talking on around 100$ per month so not a very valuable statement
-
When I compare IS with SS DT and FT they are far better than others.
Better sales and better inspection process at least in my case.
Yes, they 're greedy with buggy site but still having the best microstock collection according to me.
I'm not a buyer but if I have to buy I'll go with them.
-
I have experienced the mood swings like everyone else. I was an independent and now I am exclusive.
At the end of the day, I realize one thing, I cannot control what iStock does, but I can control what I do. I either adept and survive, or I do something else. No one cares about your destination, it's up to you, independent or exclusive.
-
I have experienced the mood swings like everyone else. I was an independent and now I am exclusive.
At the end of the day, I realize one thing, I cannot control what iStock does, but I can control what I do. I either adept and survive, or I do something else. No one cares about your destination, it's up to you, independent or exclusive.
How are you feeling about going exclusive? Is/was it worth it?
-
Mantis, as I said, I went through all the mood swings, lol, it is still a love and hate thing. I am not making as much as I had hoped, but I don't think iStock is fully responsible for it. The competition is getting tougher everyday.
In all honesty, I have learned more from iStock than anywhere else. I still believe it gives me better potential to grow as a photographer. I don't think I can go back to take the subscription sales from other agencies. At least I can opt out of Thinkstock if I want to.
I have experienced the mood swings like everyone else. I was an independent and now I am exclusive.
At the end of the day, I realize one thing, I cannot control what iStock does, but I can control what I do. I either adept and survive, or I do something else. No one cares about your destination, it's up to you, independent or exclusive.
How are you feeling about going exclusive? Is/was it worth it?
-
At least I can opt out of Thinkstock if I want to.
not following you actually.. non-exclusives can opt out too
-
Well, despite ripping us off with the commission, IS is still amazingly consistently one of my two top earners. This is something positive. Not that it covers all the negative points.
-
At least I can opt out of Thinkstock if I want to.
not following you actually.. non-exclusives can opt out too
The Getty contract changes this spring took away from the contributors any opt out for subscriptions at Thinkstock or other Getty properties. The last several 'lypses (since Tokyo I think) have required that all lypse images go to the PP sites even if the contributor is otherwise opted out. I think it's a good bet that it will at some point no longer be possible to opt out of the PP on iStock.
I'm guessing that Freedom's comment referred to the fact that it was possible for exclusives at IS to avoid subscriptions entirely (iS subscriptions aren't really; they're just bulk purchase discounts).
I don't like subscriptions either (and that was a factor in the decision to go exclusive back in 2008). However, I have a bunch of things I don't like and am in a position to have to choose the least unpleasant. As an independent, I just have to live with subscriptions because SS makes such a decent contribution to the monthly total.
-
Jsnover said exactly what I meant - as an exclusive, I can opt in a few photos or nothing at all to Thinkstock.
Actually, the PP requirements are exempted in the recent new lypses, if I remember correctly.
At least I can opt out of Thinkstock if I want to.
not following you actually.. non-exclusives can opt out too
The Getty contract changes this spring took away from the contributors any opt out for subscriptions at Thinkstock or other Getty properties. The last several 'lypses (since Tokyo I think) have required that all lypse images go to the PP sites even if the contributor is otherwise opted out. I think it's a good bet that it will at some point no longer be possible to opt out of the PP on iStock.
I'm guessing that Freedom's comment referred to the fact that it was possible for exclusives at IS to avoid subscriptions entirely (iS subscriptions aren't really; they're just bulk purchase discounts).
I don't like subscriptions either (and that was a factor in the decision to go exclusive back in 2008). However, I have a bunch of things I don't like and am in a position to have to choose the least unpleasant. As an independent, I just have to live with subscriptions because SS makes such a decent contribution to the monthly total.
-
It's like a love story. The girlfriends that do not loved, you not care that betray you. But the one you loved, you do not will never forgive ...
-
I just had a sale there for which I received 17 cents. I think that's a new low.
Obviously, all IS will do in the future is just continue to grind commissions into dust.
-
I just had a sale there for which I received 17 cents. I think that's a new low.
Obviously, all IS will do in the future is just continue to grind commissions into dust.
I had one of 12 cents ... I think I read a thread that was one of 9 cent...
-
I have nothing positive to say - not a word , not a thought, nothing - they represent everything I despise. Even though I would lose money and I know other people would too, there is this a huge (secret 8) part of me that daydreams about their complete destruction. Nuff said.
-
The only nice thing I can think of is that I did like them at one time, I never liked 20% commission but the earnings were reasonable, a few years ago. Then they made all these changes that hit my earnings, closing Stockxpert and cutting commissions is really unforgivable.
-
Actually, the PP requirements are exempted in the recent new lypses, if I remember correctly.
Not for London, where they had the additional rule that any photos you took in London, even if you arrived a few days early or stayed a few days after the 'lypse had to go to the Getty family. Same in Tokyo.
The next Milan 'lypse requires all photos taken during the lypse to go to TS; I don't know about the 'before and after' rule for Milan.
They have no need to change the TS rule - they have plenty of people clamouring to go.
-
I have nothing positive to say - not a word , not a thought, nothing - they represent everything I despise. Even though I would lose money and I know other people would too, there is this a huge (secret 8) part of me that daydreams about their complete destruction. Nuff said.
I'm convinced there would be a net loss. Buyers will still need their images, they'd just buy them from one of the other sites we contribute to.
-
I just had a sale there for which I received 17 cents. I think that's a new low.
Obviously, all IS will do in the future is just continue to grind commissions into dust.
I got 7c once, but just 2 days ago I got 2 11c sales. But OTOH I have a fresh photo in the P+ collection than usually sells as XXXL and it's nice to see a 7$ sale :)
-
I had a BME there last month, and another this month; what's not to like?
-
Istock is better then diareea
-
Istock is better then diareea
Better hope they never get better then
-
I like the fact that they are the only agency which try seriously to bring prices up (of course this only happened after the get bought by Getty before they have ruined the prices in the first place).
I'm fully aware that other agencies did have some price-updating too but not on the same level and they only followed iStock in this regard, Dreamstime and Fotolia don't have balls at all!
-
I'm fully aware that other agencies did have some price-updating too but not on the same level and they only followed iStock in this regard, Dreamstime and Fotolia don't have balls at all!
not a contributor with many sales but DT seem nice when there are some high level downloads.. of course they donīt sell like IS but in the long run seem good.. at least regardind RPD are the closest to IS
p.s: not happy with IS or DT :P
-
I just had a sale there for which I received 17 cents. I think that's a new low.
Obviously, all IS will do in the future is just continue to grind commissions into dust.
I had one of 12 cents ... I think I read a thread that was one of 9 cent...
I had one get me 10c the other day.
But then, this means the buyer paid what, 85c or so for an XS image. What is more edible than a XXL for 36c or less as subs elsewhere.
-
I just had a sale there for which I received 17 cents. I think that's a new low.
Obviously, all IS will do in the future is just continue to grind commissions into dust.
I had one of 12 cents ... I think I read a thread that was one of 9 cent...
I had one get me 10c the other day.
But then, this means the buyer paid what, 85c or so for an XS image. What is more edible than a XXL for 36c or less as subs elsewhere.
These XS sales are a plague. Yes, buyers like getting images at very small size, for web/tablet/phone applications, at correspondingly reduced prices. But we still have to produce full size images at ever-higher quality; we can't submit easily produced, low-quality images as "XS only". We're required to produce full-size images even though the likelihood of selling them at that size is rapidly decreasing. And of course all the rest of the work we do - finding subjects, props, lighting, composition - is still there in the XS image.
XS sales are just another part of the 'race to the bottom'. I realize this isn't new.
-
I just had a sale there for which I received 17 cents. I think that's a new low.
Obviously, all IS will do in the future is just continue to grind commissions into dust.
I had one of 12 cents ... I think I read a thread that was one of 9 cent...
I had one get me 10c the other day.
But then, this means the buyer paid what, 85c or so for an XS image. What is more edible than a XXL for 36c or less as subs elsewhere.
These XS sales are a plague. Yes, buyers like getting images at very small size, for web/tablet/phone applications, at correspondingly reduced prices. But we still have to produce full size images at ever-higher quality; we can't submit easily produced, low-quality images as "XS only". We're required to produce full-size images even though the likelihood of selling them at that size is rapidly decreasing. And of course all the rest of the work we do - finding subjects, props, lighting, composition - is still there in the XS image.
XS sales are just another part of the 'race to the bottom'. I realize this isn't new.
They should either loose it or charge it 2 credits. No wait, they couldn't do that it wouldn't make no sense for the bottom res to cost 2 credits. But they could introduce a ridiculously small res XXS (like at macro agencies) and sell it at 1 cr, while they could charge 2 for XS DLs.
-
sure! and change p+ too after (one or two more IS moves, no prob!)
-
I'm guessing that initially the microstocks just saw XS as another quick buck. They probably didn't anticipate the explosion in web usage, not to mention tablets, smartphones and other small-display devices, and the corresponding buyer rush to XS. The small sizes are eating up their profits as well as ours. But the great thing about a 'race to the bottom' is that it can only end one way.
-
money is the root of all evil ;)
look at all the seething hatred coming out
-
[Wow, insulting right from the start.
No more insulting and no less accurate than comments on any of the various critique fora - folks who commit to ANY single agency are going to be more inclined to buy into the crap. I'm doing contract work for one of the big IT multinationals at the moment and see exactly the same thing in the permanent staff.
Seeing the odd positive but much more negative. I'd guess if I asked the same about the other big sites the reaction to FT would be similar but much more positive on the other 2.
-
I just had a sale there for which I received 17 cents. I think that's a new low.
Obviously, all IS will do in the future is just continue to grind commissions into dust.
I had one of 12 cents ... I think I read a thread that was one of 9 cent...
I had one get me 10c the other day.
But then, this means the buyer paid what, 85c or so for an XS image. What is more edible than a XXL for 36c or less as subs elsewhere.
These XS sales are a plague. Yes, buyers like getting images at very small size, for web/tablet/phone applications, at correspondingly reduced prices. But we still have to produce full size images at ever-higher quality; we can't submit easily produced, low-quality images as "XS only". We're required to produce full-size images even though the likelihood of selling them at that size is rapidly decreasing. And of course all the rest of the work we do - finding subjects, props, lighting, composition - is still there in the XS image.
XS sales are just another part of the 'race to the bottom'. I realize this isn't new.
Most XS sales are tryout DLs for layouts --> no watermark + somewhat better quality. We bought XS by the dozens to try them out in layouts... the winner got fullres DL.
-
'No more insulting and no less accurate than comments on any of the various critique fora - folks who commit to ANY single agency are going to be more inclined to buy into the crap. I'm doing contract work for one of the big IT multinationals at the moment and see exactly the same thing in the permanent staff. '
Sorry, obviously you were only looking for negative comments, under the guise of asking for positive ones, else you'd be happy to hear from anyone.
-
These XS sales are a plague. Yes, buyers like getting images at very small size, for web/tablet/phone applications, at correspondingly reduced prices. But we still have to produce full size images at ever-higher quality; we can't submit easily produced, low-quality images as "XS only". We're required to produce full-size images even though the likelihood of selling them at that size is rapidly decreasing.
But why do we need huge images for microstock, I always ask myself. If you disregard subscriptions, they are a huge minority of the sales. Yes, with good earnings when we sell them, no doubt that is something to look for. So personally, if images are good, even if they are not big, why not accept them, why request a minimum of 6Mpix like some agencies do? Many of the images I sell at IS are still the 2-3MPix ones.
BTW, does IS still accept 2MPix images? If so, that is something good to say about them. :)
-
'No more insulting and no less accurate than comments on any of the various critique fora - folks who commit to ANY single agency are going to be more inclined to buy into the crap. I'm doing contract work for one of the big IT multinationals at the moment and see exactly the same thing in the permanent staff. '
Sorry, obviously you were only looking for negative comments, under the guise of asking for positive ones, else you'd be happy to hear from anyone.
Not the case at all. The question is prompted by the almost universal negative vibe I get from most IS related threads here and comments on other fora from former exclisives so it was an honest question. I have no problem with exclusives rowing in but:
1. If someone is only with one agency it's difficult to be balanced because you don't have a basis for comparison,
2. If you're an exclusive and can't be positive then why would you be an exclusive?
-
BTW, does IS still accept 2MPix images? If so, that is something good to say about them. :)
Minimum accepted size 1200x1600 (or equivalent product).
-
BTW, does IS still accept 2MPix images? If so, that is something good to say about them. :)
They do and I have a dozen of 2 mpix images there, which can't be uploaded anywhere else. And yeah this is a good thing I already mentioned it in on of the 123RF threads (6 mpix that you mentioned, which is nonsense).
If I think really hard there are 2-3 good things, but they really don't do much good since there are so many bad things and issues. They still are greedy, neoliberalistic pigs.
-
'No more insulting and no less accurate than comments on any of the various critique fora - folks who commit to ANY single agency are going to be more inclined to buy into the crap. I'm doing contract work for one of the big IT multinationals at the moment and see exactly the same thing in the permanent staff. '
Sorry, obviously you were only looking for negative comments, under the guise of asking for positive ones, else you'd be happy to hear from anyone.
well, maybe the ppl who said things like "wow, thank you istock", "wow, thanks istock for this new inspiration" when new credit limits and the agency collection was introduced will pop up here if we wait long enough : )
btw, istock is somewhat better than cancer (not sure tho)
-
'1. If someone is only with one agency it's difficult to be balanced because you don't have a basis for comparison,
2. If you're an exclusive and can't be positive then why would you be an exclusive?'
You didn't ask for 'balanced'. You asked for positive.
And if you're looking for 'positive' and you believe #2, then you would want to hear from exclusives, definitely.
A better title might be 'Are any independents having any positive thoughts about IS'.
-
OK, lay those positives on me ..... :)
-
OK, lay those positives on me ..... :)
http://blog.microstockgroup.com/microstock-income-vs-portfolio-size/ (http://blog.microstockgroup.com/microstock-income-vs-portfolio-size/)
**Sigh**
other one of these istock bad rest of the world good threads
**Sigh**
-
To the OP, if you're looking for some sort of accurate picture, this site isn't the place for it. The few istock exclusives who regularly post here, me included, take a good deal of flak. Frankly the more of you that hate and stop contributing to istock, the better for exclusives. you're not looking for real replies in this thread anyways....
-
'No more insulting and no less accurate than comments on any of the various critique fora - folks who commit to ANY single agency are going to be more inclined to buy into the crap. I'm doing contract work for one of the big IT multinationals at the moment and see exactly the same thing in the permanent staff. '
Sorry, obviously you were only looking for negative comments, under the guise of asking for positive ones, else you'd be happy to hear from anyone.
Not the case at all. The question is prompted by the almost universal negative vibe I get from most IS related threads here and comments on other fora from former exclisives so it was an honest question. I have no problem with exclusives rowing in but:
1. If someone is only with one agency it's difficult to be balanced because you don't have a basis for comparison,
2. If you're an exclusive and can't be positive then why would you be an exclusive?
IS is definitely the most polarising subject on this forum - some of us have experience from both time as non-exclusives and after having made the switch (or the opposite).
The thing is when IS does something it draws endlessly long threads from a handful of people on this forum and exactly the same arguments are re-hashed over and over again.
One of the reasons I made the switch is that all of the sites in the top 4 have flaws, and my income was slowly but surely being whittled away. If you talk about cuts in commissions for independents, FT and DT have both had multiple stabs at it, and there's surely more coming. DT is more subtle about it and seems to get a crowd that cheers the actions. Remember the days when the commissions there were 50% minimum - well they've dropped to a 25% minimum under the guise of "level 0" files.
The threads about search not working: well, the search has *never* worked on some sites. FT has been buggy since V2 and but they don't make any efforts to fix a thing.
Bottom line for me at the moment is that IS involves me doing less work, earns more money and (despite some opinion here to the contrary) is run by competent people who understand the business.
-
What Holgs said ... too much "Haterade" being sipped in here. ::)
-
One of the reasons I made the switch is that all of the sites in the top 4 have flaws, and my income was slowly but surely being whittled away. If you talk about cuts in commissions for independents, FT and DT have both had multiple stabs at it, and there's surely more coming. DT is more subtle about it and seems to get a crowd that cheers the actions. Remember the days when the commissions there were 50% minimum - well they've dropped to a 25% minimum under the guise of "level 0" files.
I was going to say the same thing, for all the negatives at IS I don't see things as being any better with most of the other agencies right now. I would like a few things to be changed like the RC system but the bottom line is that IS is helping me earn more money than I think I would be making at other agencies and with a lot less work.
-
This is not always true because some of us were independent not a long time ago. We know what were on the other side of the fence.
'No more insulting and no less accurate than comments on any of the various critique fora - folks who commit to ANY single agency are going to be more inclined to buy into the crap. I'm doing contract work for one of the big IT multinationals at the moment and see exactly the same thing in the permanent staff. '
Sorry, obviously you were only looking for negative comments, under the guise of asking for positive ones, else you'd be happy to hear from anyone.
Not the case at all. The question is prompted by the almost universal negative vibe I get from most IS related threads here and comments on other fora from former exclisives so it was an honest question. I have no problem with exclusives rowing in but:
1. If someone is only with one agency it's difficult to be balanced because you don't have a basis for comparison,
2. If you're an exclusive and can't be positive then why would you be an exclusive?
-
every agency has flaws, even SS.. which have been having a lot these latest months, mainly regarding new approved pictures not showing up (like 3 times this month) which is not helping on sales and getting pics buried fast..
IS has a big flaw for a long time which is the PP, a lot of people are against it and so on (thats their own business) but I am in since the start, and still havenīt all my portfolio migrated and worst the payment is taking longer and longer each month..
apart from this I am having better and better months at IS (nothing significant but surely not bad for my current earnings..)
-
'1. If someone is only with one agency it's difficult to be balanced because you don't have a basis for comparison,
2. If you're an exclusive and can't be positive then why would you be an exclusive?'
You didn't ask for 'balanced'. You asked for positive.
And if you're looking for 'positive' and you believe #2, then you would want to hear from exclusives, definitely.
A better title might be 'Are any independents having any positive thoughts about IS'.
"Rarely see anything positive posted - wondering what folks think. Really aimed at non-exclusives as less likely to be institutionalised...."
I think he was pretty clear in his initial statement that he was more interested in the non exclusive opinion. "Institutionalized" simply implies that he understands that exclusives will have a more emotional, defensive response. Both you and SNP have emphasized the reasoning as to why he used this term by your very responses.
-
Then there really wasn't a point to the thread was there? Being exclusive doesn't mean I question less, in fact it means I'm risking far more than you are. That risk is a calculated risk that is almost always cut down to cheerleading or blind faith by many (certainly not all) posters here. I'm sorry you don't feel exclusives have a valid POV....because I guarantee that we're far more aware of what's happening on iStock than many of those here who simply join the negative chorus without any firsthand contributor knowledge.
-
Then there really wasn't a point to the thread was there? Being exclusive doesn't mean I question less, in fact it means I'm risking far more than you are. That risk is a calculated risk that is almost always cut down to cheerleading or blind faith by many (certainly not all) posters here. I'm sorry you don't feel exclusives have a valid POV....because I guarantee that we're far more aware of what's happening on iStock than many of those here who simply join the negative chorus without any firsthand contributor knowledge.
He is merely asking for feedback from non exclusives in his OP. You've spun it. And so has Sean.
-
He is merely asking for feedback from non exclusives in his OP. You've spun it. And so has Sean.
I didn't spin anything. By the phrasing, it was what it was.
-
He is merely asking for feedback from non exclusives in his OP. You've spun it. And so has Sean.
I didn't spin anything. By the phrasing, it was what it was.
Institutionalized: To make part of a structured and usually well-established system.
You DO know that that are multiple definitions of institutionalized, correct?
-
What Holgs said ... too much "Haterade" being sipped in here. ::)
lol ... haterade brigade versus the koolaid drinkers ... that's about right. When did istock get soo divisive? When they introduced exclusivity I would guess was the start of it ...
-
Institutionalized: To make part of a structured and usually well-established system.
You DO know that that are multiple definitions of institutionalized, correct?
Lol, you can try to spin it that way, but obviously that was not the intended meaning of the OP:
' Rarely see anything positive posted - wondering what folks think. Really aimed at non-exclusives as less likely to be institutionalised....'
-
Institutionalized: To make part of a structured and usually well-established system.
You DO know that that are multiple definitions of institutionalized, correct?
Lol, you can try to spin it that way, but obviously that was not the intended meaning of the OP:
' Rarely see anything positive posted - wondering what folks think. Really aimed at non-exclusives as less likely to be institutionalised....'
That's just your paranoia speaking. When I read it, I assumed he meant institutionalized as in part of the institution, not belonging in one.
-
'1. If someone is only with one agency it's difficult to be balanced because you don't have a basis for comparison,
2. If you're an exclusive and can't be positive then why would you be an exclusive?'
You didn't ask for 'balanced'. You asked for positive.
And if you're looking for 'positive' and you believe #2, then you would want to hear from exclusives, definitely.
A better title might be 'Are any independents having any positive thoughts about IS'.
+1
Although with the title as it is now the comment "Really aimed at non-exclusives as less likely to be institutionalised...." should be removed. A positive comment is a positive comment no matter who it comes from. I would like this thread to be as positive as possible. I don't want contributors to stop becoming exclusives on IS, I just want the buyers to buy from elsewhere (and I think they are starting to) and I'm guessing this forum is read mostly by contributors.
Over the past several months I keep reading on this forum and also on DT's forum (although on DT they mention as 'another major site' etc) people saying that they were former IS exclusives and it's really starting to annoy me >:( ;). For anyone reading this, who is thinking about becoming an exclusive with an agency, Microstock Posts highly recommends iStockphoto (http://www.istockphoto.cum). And look I even recommend them without putting in a referral link, I'm sure IS loves me. ::)
-
Ok, I am going to add something postive about iStock, lol, the point is, if so many contributors are willing to be so hair spliting about iStock, even if they make negative comments, it only shows one thing - that iStock still carries a lot of weight, because it has got your attention. Otherwise, iStock threads won't last.
-
Then there really wasn't a point to the thread was there? Being exclusive doesn't mean I question less, in fact it means I'm risking far more than you are. That risk is a calculated risk that is almost always cut down to cheerleading or blind faith by many (certainly not all) posters here. I'm sorry you don't feel exclusives have a valid POV....because I guarantee that we're far more aware of what's happening on iStock than many of those here who simply join the negative chorus without any firsthand contributor knowledge.
you can rant all you want, but brainless sychophancy by dependent ppl is commonplace. spread that out to as many shades as you want up to total honesty, you should still end up with exclusives' opinions being worthless.
-
I didn't think the OP was asking for positives but "Does anyone have a good word to say about istock?" ie. asking whether anyone had anything positive to say. It invites a yes or no answer.
If it was asking for positive comments I thought he would have titled it "Say something positive about IStock" or something similar. And it would have been a lot shorter.
-
'1. If someone is only with one agency it's difficult to be balanced because you don't have a basis for comparison,
2. If you're an exclusive and can't be positive then why would you be an exclusive?'
You didn't ask for 'balanced'. You asked for positive.
And if you're looking for 'positive' and you believe #2, then you would want to hear from exclusives, definitely.
A better title might be 'Are any independents having any positive thoughts about IS'.
"Rarely see anything positive posted - wondering what folks think. Really aimed at non-exclusives as less likely to be institutionalised...."
I think he was pretty clear in his initial statement that he was more interested in the non exclusive opinion. "Institutionalized" simply implies that he understands that exclusives will have a more emotional, defensive response. Both you and SNP have emphasized the reasoning as to why he used this term by your very responses.
It takes a fair degree of spin to characterise the OP as anything other than giving a negative connotation to IS exclusivity.
Funnily enough I'm far less emotional than when it seemed like I was getting regular cuts in commissions or there was some other bad news that applied to me whenever I opened this forum. Sadly the days where SS gave regular increases are a distant memory, as are things like upload incentives from FT (remember those!).
Since then we've had:
- Dreamstime rate cut round 1 (50-30% for base images)
- Dreamstime rate cut round 2 (30-25% for "level 0")
- Dreamstime image culls for "similars"
- Crestock.
- Fotolia V2 (not intentional but what a disaster that was for many)
- Fotolia rate cut round 1
- Fotlia increase to goalposts round 1
- Fotolia (the never-ever subs site) introducing subscriptions
- Fotolias rate constant rate cuts by stealth as the value of the US$ diminishes
- Fotolia rate cut round 2
- iStock rate cut & RC introduction
- SS starts requiring withholding tax being paid
- Lucky Oliver closing
- StockXpert being sold to Jupiter & introducing commissions
- StockXpert being closed
- Jupiter being sold to Getty @ a fire sale
- Snapvillage being closed
- Zymetrical being closed
- Albumo.com being closed
(I'm sure I'm missing some of the low-lights reel of course)
Throw in the experience of images going through a gauntlet of 10+ sets of different reviewers mostly with varying degrees of competence or standards that they apply, and with the sum total I'm surprised not more of us are institutionalised.
Through that time the only 2 sites where I personally saw a consistent increase in both income and $ per download were IS and SS. The problem with both was that downloads were dropping at a rate that meant income was only barely rising. With IS I couldn't add enough images due to upload restrictions, with SS, the influx is so great that its a constant job of "feeding the beast".
-
I was non-exclusive until this time last year. Guess I got sick of feeding the beast and other sites were not producing enough income to make it worth while. Also, subscription makes me cringe and, here comes my positive, IS allows a non subscription option and this month is my best earning month this year.
-
I was non-exclusive until this time last year. Guess I got sick of feeding the beast and other sites were not producing enough income to make it worth while. Also, subscription makes me cringe and, here comes my positive, IS allows a non subscription option and this month is my best earning month this year.
I'd really like to hear how much the revenue rises for the newly converted exclusives. Are you going to at least hit the 30% royalties? Do you have a lot of V/A files? I can't imagine it could be worthwhile to be exclusive without a nice percentage of those files in your port. Sean and similar are only able to keep up with last years earnings with larger production than ever and lots of V/A files.
-
I was non-exclusive until this time last year. Guess I got sick of feeding the beast and other sites were not producing enough income to make it worth while. Also, subscription makes me cringe and, here comes my positive, IS allows a non subscription option and this month is my best earning month this year.
I'd really like to hear how much the revenue rises for the newly converted exclusives. Are you going to at least hit the 30% royalties? Do you have a lot of V/A files? I can't imagine it could be worthwhile to be exclusive without a nice percentage of those files in your port. Sean and similar are only able to keep up with last years earnings with larger production than ever and lots of V/A files.
Everyone's earnings are going to be different, but its actually not so hard to work out for yourself. Get a spreadsheet and punch in your last few months downloads - work out the file price based on how much you earned compared to the size downloaded and multiply that by the new percentage of the higher exclusive base rate prices. This will give you a minimum from the change without allowing for any vetta, E+ or agency files.
In practice download volumes don't drop from going exclusive - if anything they go up. I dropped from 35% to 30% with the new RC changes, but that was from not having only half a year worth of exclusive RCs. Despite this my income is still well up from pre-exclusive levels. If things keep up as they have been, I'm going to get back to the 35% well before the end of the year.
-
... with SS, the influx is so great that its a constant job of "feeding the beast".
I know 'feeding the beast' is often quoted as a complaint at SS but in my experience it is simply not true. I haven't uploaded anything to SS for several months and yet I'm enjoying my highest earnings ever for the last quarter. There has been a spectacular growth in PPD sales over the last couple of years and if anything that is still accelerating. If your images are good enough to gain high sort order placement at SS then they just go on earning. SS don't keep messing about with the sort algorithm so earnings tend to be comparatively stable.
Honestly, the worst site in my view for needing to 'feed the beast' ... is actually IS. Right now the best match is rewarding new images hugely which is why those (like Sean and others) who upload lots of images per month are just about able to maintain earnings. However if you take your foot off the throttle at IS then you will soon pay a heavy price in your earnings.
-
In practice download volumes don't drop from going exclusive - if anything they go up.
That's what they advertise and that's what I'd expect. The question is by how much? Only higher royalties and a handful of A/C sales/month and a dozen e+ wouldn't make enough of a difference (just saying for someone like me with only 400 files online)
-
That's interesting Holgs... you seem to sell at a rate only slightly higher than me, and you have a few more Vetta, but not that much - and I don't expect to make the 35% level this year, or even anywhere near it.
Perhaps you sell more larger sizes... maybe I shall have to consider upgrading to a full frame sensor too...
-
[quote author=gostwyck
I know 'feeding the beast' is often quoted as a complaint at SS but in my experience it is simply not true. I haven't uploaded anything to SS for several months and yet I'm enjoying my highest earnings ever for the last quarter.
[/quote]
My experience this year has been very similar to this. It's been wonderful to see the income at SS rising so effortlessly.
-
I was non-exclusive until this time last year. Guess I got sick of feeding the beast and other sites were not producing enough income to make it worth while. Also, subscription makes me cringe and, here comes my positive, IS allows a non subscription option and this month is my best earning month this year.
I'd really like to hear how much the revenue rises for the newly converted exclusives. Are you going to at least hit the 30% royalties? Do you have a lot of V/A files? I can't imagine it could be worthwhile to be exclusive without a nice percentage of those files in your port. Sean and similar are only able to keep up with last years earnings with larger production than ever and lots of V/A files.
No, I'm not in that league - I have a small portfolio of about 100 images and that brings in a consistent $300/month average - if I ever lose my day work then maybe I'll upload more than 1 image a month :)
Maybe "feeding the beast" is not quite as it used to be at SS. My only issue with IS is that it is not a guarantee that every image you upload well be a seller and I only focus on producing sellers. So that can be disappointing.
-
I was non-exclusive until this time last year. Guess I got sick of feeding the beast and other sites were not producing enough income to make it worth while. Also, subscription makes me cringe and, here comes my positive, IS allows a non subscription option and this month is my best earning month this year.
I'd really like to hear how much the revenue rises for the newly converted exclusives. Are you going to at least hit the 30% royalties? Do you have a lot of V/A files? I can't imagine it could be worthwhile to be exclusive without a nice percentage of those files in your port. Sean and similar are only able to keep up with last years earnings with larger production than ever and lots of V/A files.
No, I'm not in that league - I have a small portfolio of about 100 images and that brings in a consistent $300/month average - if I ever lose my day work then maybe I'll upload more than 1 image a month :)
Maybe "feeding the beast" is not quite as it used to be at SS. My only issue with IS is that it is not a guarantee that every image you upload well be a seller and I only focus on producing sellers. So that can be disappointing.
That's awesome, but you're not an exclusive. Let me know if you become, by how much your earnings rose.
-
That's awesome, but you're not an exclusive. Let me know if you become, by how much your earnings rose.
Yes I am exclusive - Earnings are approx 50% higher than when non-exclusive. That means I'm earning less than when I also uploaded to SS and DT but not by much.
-
That's awesome, but you're not an exclusive. Let me know if you become, by how much your earnings rose.
Yes I am exclusive - Earnings are approx 50% higher than when non-exclusive. That means I'm earning less than when I also uploaded to SS and DT but not by much.
OK then, this sentence confused me into thinking u aren't:
Maybe "feeding the beast" is not quite as it used to be at SS.
Just one more thing, photos or illustrations?
-
... with SS, the influx is so great that its a constant job of "feeding the beast".
I know 'feeding the beast' is often quoted as a complaint at SS but in my experience it is simply not true. I haven't uploaded anything to SS for several months and yet I'm enjoying my highest earnings ever for the last quarter. There has been a spectacular growth in PPD sales over the last couple of years and if anything that is still accelerating. If your images are good enough to gain high sort order placement at SS then they just go on earning. SS don't keep messing about with the sort algorithm so earnings tend to be comparatively stable.
Honestly, the worst site in my view for needing to 'feed the beast' ... is actually IS. Right now the best match is rewarding new images hugely which is why those (like Sean and others) who upload lots of images per month are just about able to maintain earnings. However if you take your foot off the throttle at IS then you will soon pay a heavy price in your earnings.
I've never noticed this feeding the beast scenario with shutterstock, although I think it may have existed before I started, which was April 2009. This year I've averaged 3.42 images new images online a month at ss. That's not even a snack. My downloads and income keep on increasing at a greater proportion than the effort I put in on getting new images online. The last 3 months which have been the highest for downloads, I've only added 9 images, which is even lower than my already low average. This a graph of my ss downloads so far this year. I think the beast is happy enough and we are being fed by it.
(http://www.microstockposts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/ss_downloads_jan_jul.jpg)
-
OK then, this sentence confused me into thinking u aren't:
Maybe "feeding the beast" is not quite as it used to be at SS.
Just one more thing, photos or illustrations?
both though illustrations earn far more, which means I really should take it more seriously but its just Microstock ::)
-
... It takes a fair degree of spin to characterise the OP as anything other than giving a negative connotation to IS exclusivity.....
Funny, I always thought I had a reasonable command of English....
Use of the word institutionalised is slightly tongue in cheek with the intention of getting a reaction (which it has). Nevertheless it isnt necessarily unfair or inaccurate or, indeed, negative as a generalisation (and there are always exceptions to any generalisation). It simply means that exclusives have to be predisposed to be positive or admit to making bad decisions. Id say exactly the same of DT, not an issue at SS and EU version of FT doesnt have much of a forum so cant form an opinion.
In terms of the actual question, its an open one which has both yes or no options with no bias to either. For the record (again), the question was posed out of curiosity as I dont see much positivity towards this site in particular I dont have any strong personal views except that, given all the sites are in the same business and have the same aim (making money for the site), it seems the others are playing the game with a bit more skill. Some positives from my perspective (given Im plankton in that particular food chain):
As Madelaide pointed out, allowing smaller file sizes is sensible given the uses for lots of these downloads;
I believe one or two beatings in the critique forum has enabled me to be more critical possibly leading to the acceptance rates I have on the other sites.
Downloads per image and revenue per image are higher for me there than anywhere else but this probably more to do with the fact thats its really hard to get certain types of 3D accepted so most of the folks who do this kind of stuff well just arent there.
-
I haven't been feeding any microstock beast for over 2 years now (except for Warmipics and Stockfresh, but that's the same old material anyway) and always with a very small portfolio (I think around 240 in IS). My earnings at IS this year are reduced, but so are mine at DT and especially FT. Given the dillution of my images, this is no surprise. But what I notice more is the reduction of RPD because of commission cuts in all of the three and the even increasing subs prevalence in DT and FT.
I should consider moving some images to Photo+, as people seem to be satisfied. That would perhaps boost my IS earnings.
-
Institutionalized: To make part of a structured and usually well-established system.
You DO know that that are multiple definitions of institutionalized, correct?
Lol, you can try to spin it that way, but obviously that was not the intended meaning of the OP:
' Rarely see anything positive posted - wondering what folks think. Really aimed at non-exclusives as less likely to be institutionalised....'
That's just your paranoia speaking. When I read it, I assumed he meant institutionalized as in part of the institution, not belonging in one.
Exactly I read it the same way, someone is a little sensitive....lol
-
... It takes a fair degree of spin to characterise the OP as anything other than giving a negative connotation to IS exclusivity.....
Funny, I always thought I had a reasonable command of English....
Use of the word institutionalised is slightly tongue in cheek with the intention of getting a reaction (which it has).
How strange, to make a post 'allegedly' aimed at independents only, while at the same time "intending" to provoke a reaction form exclusives.
An interesting double-think proposition.
-
Positive for IS:
- my income increases about 35% each month
- my approvals are about 85% (could be higher but I've been pushing their limits)
- most images get approved in three days.
I have been at other sites but the subscription thing is a joke. Well for me.
I am OK with iStock (gasp) Now, who wants some cheese and crackers?
-
Positive for IS:
- my income increases about 35% each month
- my approvals are about 85% (could be higher but I've been pushing their limits)
- most images get approved in three days.
I have been at other sites but the subscription thing is a joke. Well for me.
I am OK with iStock (gasp) Now, who wants some cheese and crackers?
how many months?? ;D
-
As a exclusive who let sit my portfolio and get the incomes from it 2 times a month, I'm happy. I get between 0.70$ to 16$ for each downloads. I can request a payment after 20 downloads only, which is not the case with the 7 other big agencies I submitted before being exclusive.
This being said, I do not agree about how non exclusive are treated. We are all humans after all
-
Positive for IS:
- my income increases about 35% each month
- my approvals are about 85% (could be higher but I've been pushing their limits)
- most images get approved in three days.
I have been at other sites but the subscription thing is a joke. Well for me.
I am OK with iStock (gasp) Now, who wants some cheese and crackers?
how many months?? ;D
Been shooting just over one year. The above numbers are for Year-to-date. Made $76 in January. Will make just over $900 in July. 751 images currently.
-
Positive for IS:
- my income increases about 35% each month
- my approvals are about 85% (could be higher but I've been pushing their limits)
- most images get approved in three days.
I have been at other sites but the subscription thing is a joke. Well for me.
I am OK with iStock (gasp) Now, who wants some cheese and crackers?
how many months?? ;D
Been shooting just over one year. The above numbers are for Year-to-date. Made $76 in January. Will make just over $900 in July. 751 images currently.
Illustrations, right? I hate u guys! ;D
-
What Holgs said ... too much "Haterade" being sipped in here. ::)
lol ... haterade brigade versus the koolaid drinkers ... that's about right. When did istock get soo divisive? When they introduced exclusivity I would guess was the start of it ...
I don't think Istock was every really divisive until the RC credit scheme was introduced. That system put us all in direct competition with one another. From early 2005 when I joined, until the RC system was put in place less than a year ago, I didn't really see this sort of division and hostility between exclusive and non-exclusive camps.
Even now, I think it is silly to snipe at each other based on that association. Any of us could have easily wound up in either camp. It's a simple business decision, not a religion or a sports team, for heaven's sake.
I still count some hard core exclusives among my good friends and I hope they would say the same :)
-
+1.
What Holgs said ... too much "Haterade" being sipped in here. ::)
lol ... haterade brigade versus the koolaid drinkers ... that's about right. When did istock get soo divisive? When they introduced exclusivity I would guess was the start of it ...
I don't think Istock was every really divisive until the RC credit scheme was introduced. That system put us all in direct competition with one another. From early 2005 when I joined, until the RC system was put in place less than a year ago, I didn't really see this sort of division and hostility between exclusive and non-exclusive camps.
Even now, I think it is silly to snipe at each other based on that association. Any of us could have easily wound up in either camp. It's a simple business decision, not a religion or a sports team, for heaven's sake.
I still count some hard core exclusives among my good friends and I hope they would say the same :)
-
Does anyone have a good word to say about istock?
Yes I have.
Every time I go to upload tho them something I have big diarrhea and some kind of green radioactive puke for few hours...
Who sad that they are non eco friendly?
-
Hey there - istock's a pretty much cloistered society but that's just contemporary society. i really don't know how anyone can be an artist and a 'social network freak' too - where is the time?? -istock reviewers are inconsistent - but all in all they've made me a much better photographer. Their stock is superior to shutterstock and almay & others except of course the a list, getty, magnum, etal. They have a good library with quite a few very informative well-written 'how to' articles. One must really make use of lightboxes etc. There's really no use in getting your panties in a bunch when you get a reject or don't have enough sales. the rejects are usually - note usually - correct. the stock reject paragraphs they send are lame but . . . whatever! i'd like to break into the backgrounds category as that seems to sell and i love doing them as studio pix of toothy smiling people are just not my cup a tea! but then that's what society wants - happy, clean people and sun, blue sky, and very green grass with a pretty girl . . ahh - the best sellers.
-
Does anyone have a good word to say about istock?
Yes I have.
Every time I go to upload tho them something I have big diarrhea and some kind of green radioactive puke for few hours...
Who sad that they are non eco friendly?
I just spoke to my Doctor about the reaction you keep having and he prescribes abstinence.
-
Does anyone have a good word to say about istock?
Yes I have.
Every time I go to upload tho them something I have big diarrhea and some kind of green radioactive puke for few hours...
Who sad that they are non eco friendly?
I just spoke to my Doctor about the reaction you keep having and he prescribes abstinence.
Nonono, you misheard, it was absinthe he prescribed.
-
It's really sad we're fighting each other instead of the beast. By doing so, we're really just making the beast stronger and stronger, just like every evil force ;)
-
If you are a fine Art creative photographer who likes things like ie, light and shadows, forget it. If you take flat well lit images that are not that interesting from a creative perspective you have more chance of the "reviewers" letting you through.
I am an exclusive and am finding myself between a rock and a hard place. If I go, my already dire royalties will drop to an even more pathetic low than they already are. If I stay I feel like I am not being rewarded at all for my exclusivity. If I can sell my images through more outlets I may make more (as well as the rejected images) but it will be time consuming.
In a nutshell I have nothing good to say about IS at this moment. Every month gets worse for me and this last has been the worst in royalties since 2009.
-
Does anyone have a good word to say about istock?
Yes I have.
Every time I go to upload tho them something I have big diarrhea and some kind of green radioactive puke for few hours...
Who sad that they are non eco friendly?
I just spoke to my Doctor about the reaction you keep having and he prescribes abstinence.
ROFLMAO!
I have Suljo on ignore, but it was worth reading his drivel to see your hilarious response.
Thanks for a great laugh ;D
-
I have Suljo on ignore
He is my favourite member here! Great humour and sometimes very helpful. Hard to understand why you have him on ignore.
-
I have Suljo on ignore
He is my favourite member here! Great humour and sometimes very helpful. Hard to understand why you have him on ignore.
Really? Hard to see what's so helpful about his endless repetition of the same joke comparing Istock to cattle.
FWIW, the above diarrhea joke doesn't incline me to take him off ignore. But hey, if that's what you are into, you are free to continue enjoying his rapier sharp wit ;).
-
Lisa, I agree with you! scratching my head at that one too, lol.
-
Lisa, I agree with you! scratching my head at that one too, lol.
Me3.
-
donīt have a opinion about Suljo, donīt remember much topics with him/her but I am so happy that I have found a person that has more people ignoring him/her than me! :)
-
. Deleted
See my next post
-
.
-
I have Suljo on ignore
He is my favourite member here! Great humour and sometimes very helpful. Hard to understand why you have him on ignore.
Really? Hard to see what's so helpful about his endless repetition of the same joke comparing Istock to cattle.
FWIW, the above diarrhea joke doesn't incline me to take him off ignore. But hey, if that's what you are into, you are free to continue enjoying his rapier sharp wit ;).
Look Lisa
After all iStock/CATTLE/LIVESTOCK isnt joke at all. It just what they name means in my language, and sweetest thing is that they behave like that see below.
A few years ago when iStock started with their greedy games I had perhaps the sharpest expression, sometime it was to rude, while contributors (especially exclusives) are flooded with Woyay threads and been blind at that time. I have been interested how far iStock will go with it, and it seems to me there is no end. Now I do not care what they do because I do not expect anything positive from them in the future.
Now as I see more and more negative/sharp/rude opinions from people who were in Woyay club have bigger moans and conspiracy theories about iStock than me ever.
For me now it is just sweet when I opening iStock site (if smacks are online ;D ) and just say for myself: "Lest see what Cat..e is doing/inventing how to screw all of us more"
How do you dont understand Lisa. This word is just Disambiguation of original meaning in my language.
Let's say you were a waitress and had a boss who is harassed or mistreated you and other workers, and who had a funny name or surname that reflected his behavior and that became his nickname.
Is that so hard to figure out.
Any how Cat..e is to soft(drink) and wrong word for iSotck what they are. More appropriate description for them will be GRDY ARGNT BSTRDS but I unfortunately I dont call them like that in most my posts, even they deserve it
PERIOD
For me is funny English word CowBoy - if it is translated in my language it seams that mother of this Boy is Cow
or word CockPit of airplane seams you can see by youre self...
There lots of more ambiguous words but I can not remember right now...
---------------------------------
Can somebody quote this jabbering how can Lisa could read this with her hearing thirsty eyes on her avatar.
THNX
Suljo
([url]http://translate.google.com/#hr[/url]|en|iStock[/url)
that way she can read it :-)
-
Bruce Livingstone founded istock, the first microstock site and that's the reason we're all here. ;D (positive?)
-
Look Lisa
After all iStock/CATTLE/LIVESTOCK isnt joke at all. It just what they name means in my language, and sweetest thing is that they behave like that see below.
S T O K A (http://translate.google.com/#hr|en|)
Seams that Leaf put automatic filter when I type S T O K A filter automatically translate this to iStock so try this
and in translation field enter S T O K A without spaces
A few years ago when iStock started with their greedy games I had perhaps the sharpest expression, sometime it was to rude, while contributors (especially exclusives) are flooded with Woyay threads and been blind at that time. I have been interested how far iStock will go with it, and it seems to me there is no end. Now I do not care what they do because I do not expect anything positive from them in the future.
Now as I see more and more negative/sharp/rude opinions from people who were in Woyay club have bigger moans and conspiracy theories about iStock than me ever.
For me now it is just sweet when I opening iStock site (if smacks are online ;D ) and just say for myself: "Lest see what Cat..e is doing/inventing how to screw all of us more"
How do you dont understand Lisa. This word is just Disambiguation of original meaning in my language.
Let's say you were a waitress and had a boss who is harassed or mistreated you and other workers, and who had a funny name or surname that reflected his behavior and that became his nickname.
Is that so hard to figure out.
Any how Cat..e is to soft(drink) and wrong word for iSotck what they are. More appropriate description for them will be GRDY ARGNT BSTRDS but I unfortunately I dont call them like that in most my posts, even they deserve it
PERIOD
For me is funny English word CowBoy - if it is translated in my language it seams that mother of this Boy is Cow
or word CockPit of airplane seams you can see by youre self...
There lots of more ambiguous words but I can not remember right now...
---------------------------------
Can somebody quote this jabbering how can Lisa could read this with her hearing thirsty eyes on her avatar.
THNX
Suljo
Sorry for double post
-
How many more "ignores" are needed to get eliminated? ::)
-
Rarely see anything positive posted - wondering what folks think. Really aimed at non-exclusives as less likely to be institutionalised....
[/quote
It works for me, but I am an "institutionalized exclusive". It is a very nice supplement to my outside income, I have learned a lot about some types of photography, and it makes buying new L lenses much easier to justify to my wife.
-
Really? Hard to see what's so helpful about his endless repetition of the same joke comparing Istock to cattle.
Yeah, that was quite boring, but I noticed he hasn't made them lately. I wished he had forgotten it, but now he is bak to it!
Now that you've mentioned... he has 28 ignores, did shank_ali had that many?
-
Really? Hard to see what's so helpful about his endless repetition of the same joke comparing Istock to cattle.
Yeah, that was quite boring, but I noticed he hasn't made them lately. I wished he had forgotten it, but now he is bak to it!
Now that you've mentioned... he has 28 ignores, did shank_ali had that many?
Read my last post
and it IS NOT A JOKE for me any more.
Its just funny ambiguity. DIG it?!
Blahhh
just read it...
if you dont understand kick you head on nearest wall hard...
-
grp_photo, if you are going to quote the entire text of people just for the purpose of forcing them on those who are ignoring them, that completely violates the purpose of the ignore button. I certainly do admire your loyalty to your friend though.
BTW, did not read it. Sorry to disappoint.
-
Does anyone have a good word to say about istock?
Nope, not me, but I wouldn't use diarrhea and radioactive puke in any conversation about them either. ::)
-
Does anyone have a good word to say about istock?
Nope, not me, but I wouldn't use diarrhea and radioactive puke in any conversation about them either. ::)
Actually this is my reaction ;) (video works from 0:12) Little Britain - Judge the jam (http://www.gametrailers.com/user-movie/little-britain-judge-the/117101)
-
Does anyone have a good word to say about istock?
Nope, not me, but I wouldn't use diarrhea and radioactive puke in any conversation about them either. ::)
So whats you opinoin abouth them?
-
Okay, so now I feel like a jerk. Suljo, sorry if I hurt your feelings.
I absolutely understand why you are angry at Istock. A lot of people are similarly angry at them, and that often includes me.
I don't object to complaining about any agency. Just got tired of hearing the SAME joke repeated in nearly every post. Maybe your more recent posts have been more constructive. I hope so.
I don't know anyone here as a person, just as a forum persona. Sometimes a particular persona will get on my nerves. From the popularity of the "ignore" button, it seems I am not alone in feeling that way. The ten members who have me on ignore would obviously agree :)
No point in taking the ignores too personally. If someone eggs your house of burns a bag of doggie doo on your porch, then you should maybe be offended. ;)
-
I find Suljo's rages in themselves funny (like black comedy) it's his/her grammar, syntax and spelling that really bug me. If he/she is not a native English speaker I will give it a bit more leeway, but come on.
Anyhoo to answer the OP
IS positive: I earn the most money from them
IS negatives: they tell half-truths a lot and Lobo
-
Just got tired of hearing the SAME joke repeated in nearly every post.
Shhh, Lisa, it is not a joke anymore, and for not noticing it so we both should be kicking our heads on the wall. :D
-
Look Lisa
After all iStock/CATTLE/LIVESTOCK isnt joke at all. It just what they name means in my language, and sweetest thing is that they behave like that see below.
S T O K A ([url]http://translate.google.com/#hr[/url]|en|)
Seams that Leaf put automatic filter when I type S T O K A filter automatically translate this to iStock so try this
and in translation field enter S T O K A without spaces
A few years ago when iStock started with their greedy games I had perhaps the sharpest expression, sometime it was to rude, while contributors (especially exclusives) are flooded with Woyay threads and been blind at that time. I have been interested how far iStock will go with it, and it seems to me there is no end. Now I do not care what they do because I do not expect anything positive from them in the future.
Now as I see more and more negative/sharp/rude opinions from people who were in Woyay club have bigger moans and conspiracy theories about iStock than me ever.
For me now it is just sweet when I opening iStock site (if smacks are online ;D ) and just say for myself: "Lest see what Cat..e is doing/inventing how to screw all of us more"
How do you dont understand Lisa. This word is just Disambiguation of original meaning in my language.
Let's say you were a waitress and had a boss who is harassed or mistreated you and other workers, and who had a funny name or surname that reflected his behavior and that became his nickname.
Is that so hard to figure out.
Any how Cat..e is to soft(drink) and wrong word for iSotck what they are. More appropriate description for them will be GRDY ARGNT BSTRDS but I unfortunately I dont call them like that in most my posts, even they deserve it
PERIOD
For me is funny English word CowBoy - if it is translated in my language it seams that mother of this Boy is Cow
or word CockPit of airplane seams you can see by youre self...
There lots of more ambiguous words but I can not remember right now...
---------------------------------
Can somebody quote this jabbering how can Lisa could read this with her hearing thirsty eyes on her avatar.
THNX
Suljo
Sorry for double post
on a special wish but now I'm on ignore too so maybe someone other have to quote it :-)
-
Just got tired of hearing the SAME joke repeated in nearly every post.
Shhh, Lisa, it is not a joke anymore, and for not noticing it so we both should be kicking our heads on the wall. :D
Girls, girls calm down.
Saddest thing is that we fight and bully and ignoring each other When a major cause of infectious diseases is far from us. In Calgary.
-
I do actually! and in spite of all flaming, Ive had a great 5 years there, cant say anything else. They were once a powerhouse of a site, thats for sure. This exclusivity business is nothing new, the old trad-agencies were all person exclusivity geared but managed in a differant way.
If all this was just down to IS, etc, I would persevere, upload and everything but its not. Getty rules it with an iron fist and thats that. If Getty has problems with the micro, RF and contributors, well, thats nothing, just a spit in the ocean compared with the problems of financiers, debts and all and frankly, I dont think the Getty as we know it, will be around for too long, they have had their time, 20 years and its time to move over really.
-
I have two good words to say about iStock.
"Rob Sylvan"
He was great, and so helpful. If it hadn't been for iStock, I'd never have come across him.
-
Girls, girls calm down.
Saddest thing is that we fight and bully and ignoring each other When a major cause of infectious diseases is far from us. In Calgary.
I will take your statement as a metaphor and agree with you wholeheartedly. :)
-
I have two good words to say about iStock.
"Rob Sylvan"
He was great, and so helpful. If it hadn't been for iStock, I'd never have come across him.
I absolutely echo your positive thoughts about the hunk in boots - he did an amazing job of being their public face in the forums. Firm, calm and always treated everyone with respect. I know he worked trade shows for them, and I expect he was equally good at that.
However Rob is no longer with iStock and so I'd disqualify the comment in that we're not talking about all the things that used to be good in the past, but things that are good now. Unfortunately for us and for iStock, Rob is not currently part of their team.
-
I have two good words to say about iStock.
"Rob Sylvan"
He was great, and so helpful. If it hadn't been for iStock, I'd never have come across him.
I absolutely echo your positive thoughts about the hunk in boots - he did an amazing job of being their public face in the forums. Firm, calm and always treated everyone with respect. I know he worked trade shows for them, and I expect he was equally good at that.
However Rob is no longer with iStock and so I'd disqualify the comment in that we're not talking about all the things that used to be good in the past, but things that are good now. Unfortunately for us and for iStock, Rob is not currently part of their team.
He's doing a training at the Utah lypse.
-
I dont' have too much to complain about IS, except for the Redeemed Credits.
Recently SS is really bothering me with nonsense rejections, while IS continues to accept my photos (and sell them). In these months I'm more against SS than with IS.
-
While there's been a lot to be mad at regarding iStock over the past year, the site seems to have settled down a bit over the summer. I was pleased to see that they are advertising on the TV Guide channel website. Hey, it's something...
:D
-
Institutionalized: To make part of a structured and usually well-established system.
You DO know that that are multiple definitions of institutionalized, correct?
Lol, you can try to spin it that way, but obviously that was not the intended meaning of the OP:
' Rarely see anything positive posted - wondering what folks think. Really aimed at non-exclusives as less likely to be institutionalised....'
Well, Let's ask the OP...That's fair enough I suspect.
-
'1. If someone is only with one agency it's difficult to be balanced because you don't have a basis for comparison,
2. If you're an exclusive and can't be positive then why would you be an exclusive?'
You didn't ask for 'balanced'. You asked for positive.
And if you're looking for 'positive' and you believe #2, then you would want to hear from exclusives, definitely.
A better title might be 'Are any independents having any positive thoughts about IS'.
"Rarely see anything positive posted - wondering what folks think. Really aimed at non-exclusives as less likely to be institutionalised...."
I think he was pretty clear in his initial statement that he was more interested in the non exclusive opinion. "Institutionalized" simply implies that he understands that exclusives will have a more emotional, defensive response. Both you and SNP have emphasized the reasoning as to why he used this term by your very responses.
It takes a fair degree of spin to characterise the OP as anything other than giving a negative connotation to IS exclusivity.
Funnily enough I'm far less emotional than when it seemed like I was getting regular cuts in commissions or there was some other bad news that applied to me whenever I opened this forum. Sadly the days where SS gave regular increases are a distant memory, as are things like upload incentives from FT (remember those!).
Since then we've had:
- Dreamstime rate cut round 1 (50-30% for base images)
- Dreamstime rate cut round 2 (30-25% for "level 0")
- Dreamstime image culls for "similars"
- Crestock.
- Fotolia V2 (not intentional but what a disaster that was for many)
- Fotolia rate cut round 1
- Fotlia increase to goalposts round 1
- Fotolia (the never-ever subs site) introducing subscriptions
- Fotolias rate constant rate cuts by stealth as the value of the US$ diminishes
- Fotolia rate cut round 2
- iStock rate cut & RC introduction
- SS starts requiring withholding tax being paid
- Lucky Oliver closing
- StockXpert being sold to Jupiter & introducing commissions
- StockXpert being closed
- Jupiter being sold to Getty @ a fire sale
- Snapvillage being closed
- Zymetrical being closed
- Albumo.com being closed
(I'm sure I'm missing some of the low-lights reel of course)
Throw in the experience of images going through a gauntlet of 10+ sets of different reviewers mostly with varying degrees of competence or standards that they apply, and with the sum total I'm surprised not more of us are institutionalised.
Through that time the only 2 sites where I personally saw a consistent increase in both income and $ per download were IS and SS. The problem with both was that downloads were dropping at a rate that meant income was only barely rising. With IS I couldn't add enough images due to upload restrictions, with SS, the influx is so great that its a constant job of "feeding the beast".
That wasn't his question. It was simply "is there anyone non-exclusive that has anything good to say about Istock". The point I am making is that a lot of people posting in this particular thread have taken a pragmatically inferred question and made it their own. Op didn't ask about any other site...just IS. Now, I cannot speak for the OP on his particular definition. Websters #1 definition of this word is: "to incorporate into a structured and often highly formalized system"....need I say ISTOCK. At least this was my personal interpretation of the OP...maybe I am * nuts. ::)
-
He is merely asking for feedback from non exclusives in his OP. You've spun it. And so has Sean.
I didn't spin anything. By the phrasing, it was what it was.
Institutionalized: To make part of a structured and usually well-established system.
You DO know that that are multiple definitions of institutionalized, correct?
The point I am making is that a lot of people posting in this particular thread have taken a pragmatically inferred question and made it their own. Now, I cannot speak for the OP on his particular definition but, using common sense, Websters #1 definition of this word is: "to incorporate into a structured and often highly formalized system"....need I say ISTOCK. At least this was my personal interpretation of the OP.