MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: When is it.. (OK).. to complain about poor sales..  (Read 12535 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

shank_ali

« on: January 06, 2009, 15:46 »
0
Not on january the 6th that's for sure.
If you have had good sales and then they decline even though your portfolio grows still no reason to complain.
If your exclusive and want more sales make your files available to a different group of buyers. eh duh ( those that don't buy from istockphoto ) stupid.
In closing  it's never OK to complain as no-one really cares from the sites you contribute too.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2009, 16:50 by shank_ali »


lisafx

« Reply #1 on: January 06, 2009, 18:32 »
0
To me it is okay to complain about poor sales any time.  One of my favorite hobbies - second only to rejoicing in good sales :D

Besides, having poor sales is a bummer, and complaining is a good way to let off steam.  It's also a good way to find out if it is just you or if others are experiencing the same. 

But I do agree with you that it is way too early in the month/year to draw any conclusions about trends.

bittersweet

« Reply #2 on: January 06, 2009, 21:52 »
0
That reminds me; I'm curious. When does your posting ban lift at istock? And when that happens, will we be graced less frequently with your presence here?

« Reply #3 on: January 06, 2009, 22:04 »
0
That reminds me; I'm curious. When does your posting ban lift at istock? And when that happens, will we be graced less frequently with your presence here?

I certainly have my fingers crossed.  ;)

Tuilay

« Reply #4 on: January 06, 2009, 23:19 »
0
That reminds me; I'm curious. When does your posting ban lift at istock? And when that happens, will we be graced less frequently with your presence here?

I certainly have my fingers crossed.  ;)

why even wait for the ban to lift at Istock,
would it not be easier to just change your monicker???
huh?  ;)

just don't use Bruce Willis. it's already taken !!! ;D

« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2009, 00:54 »
0
Not on january the 6th that's for sure.
If you have had good sales and then they decline even though your portfolio grows still no reason to complain.
If your exclusive and want more sales make your files available to a different group of buyers. eh duh ( those that don't buy from istockphoto ) stupid.
In closing  it's never OK to complain as no-one really cares from the sites you contribute too.

But it is ok to complain about complaining, I guess!

fred

bittersweet

« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2009, 00:55 »
0
That reminds me; I'm curious. When does your posting ban lift at istock? And when that happens, will we be graced less frequently with your presence here?

I certainly have my fingers crossed.  ;)

why even wait for the ban to lift at Istock,
would it not be easier to just change your monicker???
huh?  ;)

just don't use Bruce Willis. it's already taken !!! ;D

Oh I think he'd have to change more than his name to go unnoticed once he starts typing.

shank_ali

« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2009, 02:18 »
0
That reminds me; I'm curious. When does your posting ban lift at istock? And when that happens, will we be graced less frequently with your presence here?
I am not at liberty to discuss my ban from istock.If i can post again on istock next month i shall still post on this forum as the thought of annoying two groups of people at the same time stimulates me no end!

« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2009, 02:29 »
0
Ok, you often irritate me but that made me laugh out loud. ;D

If i can post again on istock next month i shall still post on this forum as the thought of annoying two groups of people at the same time stimulates me no end!

ironarrow

« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2009, 07:16 »
0
That reminds me; I'm curious. When does your posting ban lift at istock? And when that happens, will we be graced less frequently with your presence here?
I am not at liberty to discuss my ban from istock.If i can post again on istock next month i shall still post on this forum as the thought of annoying two groups of people at the same time stimulates me no end!

Poor thing..  Are you annoyed by your own existence too?

« Reply #10 on: January 07, 2009, 07:30 »
0
I am not at liberty to discuss my ban from istock.If i can post again on istock next month i shall still post on this forum as the thought of annoying two groups of people at the same time stimulates me no end!

Well, make sure you clean up afterwards...

« Reply #11 on: January 07, 2009, 07:45 »
0
I am not at liberty to discuss my ban from istock.If i can post again on istock next month i shall still post on this forum as the thought of annoying two groups of people at the same time stimulates me no end!

Well, make sure you clean up afterwards...

Hankie for Shanki please!

bittersweet

« Reply #12 on: January 07, 2009, 07:49 »
0
That reminds me; I'm curious. When does your posting ban lift at istock? And when that happens, will we be graced less frequently with your presence here?
I am not at liberty to discuss my ban from istock.If i can post again on istock next month i shall still post on this forum as the thought of annoying two groups of people at the same time stimulates me no end!

Awesome! Maybe you can just copy and paste the same interesting topics in both places! That would totally rock! Almost like Shank in stereo.

yay!

RacePhoto

« Reply #13 on: January 07, 2009, 13:11 »
0
To me it is okay to complain about poor sales any time.  One of my favorite hobbies - second only to rejoicing in good sales :D


Maybe we should have a survey? Which is more common, (and fun) to complain about:
 
1) poor sales, 2) Rejections/Reviewers, 3) Slow reviews, 4) Keywording, 5) Uploading or reading IPTC data problems, 6) Low pay for subscriptions.

Eliminate these and the forum would really slow down.  ::)

lisafx

« Reply #14 on: January 07, 2009, 13:46 »
0
^^  LOL!  Exactly!

Put me down for "slow sales".  That is the hardest thing for me to deal with and the most likely thing I will complain about.  Nothing beats the bottom line....

shank_ali

« Reply #15 on: January 07, 2009, 15:05 »
0
I do not complain about rejections as much now,if i feel really attached to an image i just look back through and upload another from the shoot.
Happy with what i get payed for my sales and already this year had 5 large sales ranging from$2.90-$3.50.
What contributors don't realise is a sale for us is the end product.A sale for a buyer is probably at the beginning of a project and alot of buyers WONT be buying everyday as they will be working on   said project/design.

« Reply #16 on: January 07, 2009, 15:36 »
0
What contributors don't realise is a sale for us is the end product.A sale for a buyer is probably at the beginning of a project and alot of buyers WONT be buying everyday as they will be working on   said project/design.

Yes I'm sure none of us are smart enough to figure that out. Thank you for enlightening us poor unintelligent sobs with your endless wisdom. What oh what would we do without you.

« Reply #17 on: January 07, 2009, 17:14 »
0
From hapless newbie to super-guru in a year, who'd have known?

bittersweet

« Reply #18 on: January 07, 2009, 17:30 »
0
From hapless newbie to super-guru in a year, who'd have known?


Yes, and you can follow the entire journey just by reading the 51 threads he started in the istock critique forum.
It's really a touching epic, best enjoyed if you begin at the beginning - page 3.
http://www.istockphoto.com/shank_ali

You've come a long way, baby!

« Reply #19 on: January 07, 2009, 18:21 »
0
From hapless newbie to super-guru in a year, who'd have known?


Yes, and you can follow the entire journey just by reading the 51 threads he started in the istock critique forum.
It's really a touching epic, best enjoyed if you begin at the beginning - page 3.
http://www.istockphoto.com/shank_ali

You've come a long way, baby!


He reduced someone in my CN to tears, and not tears of laughter. Not all his posts are there anymore.

shank_ali

« Reply #20 on: January 08, 2009, 02:20 »
0
What contributors don't realise is a sale for us is the end product.A sale for a buyer is probably at the beginning of a project and alot of buyers WONT be buying everyday as they will be working on   said project/design.

Yes I'm sure none of us are smart enough to figure that out. Thank you for enlightening us poor unintelligent sobs with your endless wisdom. What oh what would we do without you.
If you were without me i honestly feel that your life would spiral out of control and  drink and drugs would engulf your very being.x

« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2009, 03:51 »
0
february 30th

Tuilay

« Reply #22 on: January 08, 2009, 11:33 »
0
What contributors don't realise is a sale for us is the end product.A sale for a buyer is probably at the beginning of a project and alot of buyers WONT be buying everyday as they will be working on   said project/design.

Yes I'm sure none of us are smart enough to figure that out. Thank you for enlightening us poor unintelligent sobs with your endless wisdom. What oh what would we do without you.
If you were without me i honestly feel that your life would spiral out of control and  drink and drugs would engulf your very being.x

what a beautiful love / hate, hate.leave affair we have here.
they just love to hate you, and you just hate to leave !  8)

« Reply #23 on: January 08, 2009, 14:38 »
0
Happy with what i get payed for my sales and already this year had 5 large sales ranging from$2.90-$3.50.
What contributors don't realise is a sale for us is the end product.
A sale for a buyer is probably at the beginning of a project and alot of buyers WONT be buying everyday as they will be working on   said project/design.

A buyer may download a small image for a composite at the begining of a project, medium half way through for a publication, and an EL later a the campaign takes off, so not always the end product, that is the image not the revenue.

Rather than photographers complaining about poor sales they should look at why they could be poor, the recession, changes in the types of images buyers are looking for, old tired images in thier portfolio, to many similars, to many seasonal images, not enough diversity, buyers not purchasing so many images, buyers finding cheaper images, changing trends, sites marketing not as aggressive, market dilution.

Shanks old mate I see you have achieved one of your targets, Istock Exclusive, all eggs in one basket comes to mind.

Quote
If your exclusive and want more sales make your files available to a different group of buyers. eh duh ( those that don't buy from istockphoto ) stupid.

I do not see you practicing what you preach, Yuri and other Istock Exclusives also upload Different Images to the traditional sites like Alamy without affecting thier status.

Then you could have your income from the micros supplemented by a traditional sale, my last sale netted me a mere $85.00.

Now then lets also take the perspective of the Site Owners that are trying to make a profit and keep the sites running they are also affected, the recession, changes in the types of images buyers are looking for, photographers uploading tired images and to many similars, to many seasonal images at the wrong time, not enough diversity being uploaded, thier buyers not purchasing so many images and finding cheaper images, changing trends, marketing budgets cut, market dilution and price undercutting by other sites, never really hear them complain, they have a look and adjust thier business to suit.

So the time to complain is when you are sure you have done everything you can to maximise your sales, and the poor sales can be attributed only to the way a site is managed, then you still do not complain, it is thier business you are just a supplier, if you are unhappy you just stop supplying your images and move on before the axe falls.

David  ;) ;D
« Last Edit: January 08, 2009, 14:50 by Adeptris »

RacePhoto

« Reply #24 on: January 09, 2009, 14:08 »
0
From hapless newbie to super-guru in a year, who'd have known?


Yes, and you can follow the entire journey just by reading the 51 threads he started in the istock critique forum.
It's really a touching epic, best enjoyed if you begin at the beginning - page 3.
http://www.istockphoto.com/shank_ali

You've come a long way, baby!


He reduced someone in my CN to tears, and not tears of laughter. Not all his posts are there anymore.


I liked this one, which included:

i leaving this istock forum for awhile as i,m going to learn ever single thing about my vivitar840 before i spend my hard earned money on a better camera

perhaps the next time i post a comment on the great istock forum site i might actually be a CONTRIBUTOR


We all started somewhere, some of us back when processing color film in a home dark room was very cutting edge.  ;D

When i started taking photographs for the first time in May 2007 with my little vivitar 840 who would of reasoned a year later i am on the verge of becoming an exclusive contributor on istockphoto.

Finally,i think i can get the 50%.Currently at 49.46%.


Looks like he made 50% and went exclusive. That was after 100 threads for review and all about IS rejections.

There you go, another success story from an IS exclusive.  ::)

shank_ali

« Reply #25 on: January 09, 2009, 15:39 »
0
Well it's fine if you wish to read my past  forum threads.over on istock.I have made a few and i suspect i may make a few more if my ban is lifted.
I am happy being EXCLUSIVE on istockphoto.As the new higher prices of credit bundles the buyers have to pay start to filter through all EXCLUSIVES will start to see $2 for a medium and $4 for a large file sale and i am only bronze.Less sales,same money works for me !

« Reply #26 on: January 09, 2009, 15:42 »
0

bittersweet

« Reply #27 on: January 09, 2009, 16:07 »
0

There you go, another success story from an IS exclusive.  ::)


Right, he's the new poster boy.

« Reply #28 on: January 11, 2009, 02:28 »
0
I do not see you practicing what you preach, Yuri and other Istock Exclusives also upload Different Images to the traditional sites like Alamy without affecting thier status.
When did Yuri go exclusive? And what other exclusives are you talking about?

« Reply #29 on: January 11, 2009, 04:46 »
0
I do not see you practicing what you preach, Yuri and other Istock Exclusives also upload Different Images to the traditional sites like Alamy without affecting thier status.
When did Yuri go exclusive? And what other exclusives are you talking about?

Sorry rephrased, "Yuri and some Istock Exclusives", Yuris does contribute to Alamy, and so do some Istock exclusive contributors, and many non exclusive, I will not name anyone as some use different names on Alamy, but a search of the forum here and at Alamy will return some answers.

It is not against Istock exclusive policy to contribute images to other Traditional agencies just not other microsites, it is not even against Alamy terms to put the same RF Miro images on thier site and similars as RM, but is not welcomed by other and could lead to crediting back a sale.

Also Alamy sales are 75% editorial and 78% RM, and as they do not edit content therefore  non RF images of buildings and people without releases will not be rejected as they may have editorial use, this reduces the micro vs macro conflict of interest, an example is the "London Eye" main focus in an image is restricted, and would get a rejection on Istock, Istock 216 images, Alamy 9365 Images.

The point of my reply was that even as an Istock Exclusive there are other types of images and Macro sites where you could upload to, rather than putting all eggs in the one basket, then any sales variances could be balanced by other types of sales.

It is confusing to some Photographers as they think that it is Micro or Macro, but as a vendor you should supply your goods to any outlet you are comfortable with, you will find the same day to day branded goods in low and high end outlets at different price points.

David :)      
« Last Edit: January 11, 2009, 05:12 by Adeptris »

abimages

« Reply #30 on: January 11, 2009, 09:14 »
0
I do not see you practicing what you preach, Yuri and other Istock Exclusives also upload Different Images to the traditional sites like Alamy without affecting thier status.
When did Yuri go exclusive? And what other exclusives are you talking about?

Sorry rephrased, "Yuri and some Istock Exclusives", Yuris does contribute to Alamy, and so do some Istock exclusive contributors, and many non exclusive, I will not name anyone as some use different names on Alamy, but a search of the forum here and at Alamy will return some answers.

It is not against Istock exclusive policy to contribute images to other Traditional agencies just not other microsites, it is not even against Alamy terms to put the same RF Miro images on thier site and similars as RM, but is not welcomed by other and could lead to crediting back a sale.

Also Alamy sales are 75% editorial and 78% RM, and as they do not edit content therefore  non RF images of buildings and people without releases will not be rejected as they may have editorial use, this reduces the micro vs macro conflict of interest, an example is the "London Eye" main focus in an image is restricted, and would get a rejection on Istock, Istock 216 images, Alamy 9365 Images.

The point of my reply was that even as an Istock Exclusive there are other types of images and Macro sites where you could upload to, rather than putting all eggs in the one basket, then any sales variances could be balanced by other types of sales.

It is confusing to some Photographers as they think that it is Micro or Macro, but as a vendor you should supply your goods to any outlet you are comfortable with, you will find the same day to day branded goods in low and high end outlets at different price points.

David :)      

Adeptris, thanks but that could still be misleading to some.
To clarify:
Anyone who is exclusive at IS would NOT be allowed to sell RF ANYWHERE, even macro.
They can however sell RM anywhere they want.

Cheers
Anthony

« Reply #31 on: January 11, 2009, 09:19 »
0
To me it is okay to complain about poor sales any time.  One of my favorite hobbies - second only to rejoicing in good sales :D


Maybe we should have a survey? Which is more common, (and fun) to complain about:
 
1) poor sales, 2) Rejections/Reviewers, 3) Slow reviews, 4) Keywording, 5) Uploading or reading IPTC data problems, 6) Low pay for subscriptions.

Eliminate these and the forum would really slow down.  ::)


Well the complaints on 1-4 are most amusing and frequent from those who have half a dozen photos in their portfolio and have been doing stock for 3 months. Especially when they begin: I got a rejection for noise, even though I'm shooting with a 5D...

5) The IPTC problem is a valid complaint, especially when you only get a correct answer the 5th time you make the complaint.
6) It seems to be mostly those who don't do it at all that complain about this....

bittersweet

« Reply #32 on: January 11, 2009, 09:20 »
0
It is not against Istock exclusive policy to contribute images to other Traditional agencies just not other microsites,

Wrong. It is against exclusive policy to contribute RF images to ANY site other than iStock or Getty. However, exclusives can upload images under any other licensing model to any other site. So either you are referring to someone or someones who are violating the exclusive agreement, or you are confused by their RM images appearing elsewhere.

(ETA: Sorry, Anthony, we were posting at the same time and I apparently ignored the warning. ;) )
« Last Edit: January 11, 2009, 09:22 by whatalife »

« Reply #33 on: January 11, 2009, 11:34 »
0
Yep sorry Guys my mistake no RF for Istock Exclusive only RM to other sites :-[.

The point still stands in that at the moment, if you do some research and look at the type of images Alamy sell which are mainly editorial, travel etc: logo's and Landmarks not rejected, these are not the same as you would consider shooting or trying to upload to the microsites, you could however expand your business without hurting your Istock Exclusive Status and without feeling you are doing something wrong  :o

David  ;D     

RacePhoto

« Reply #34 on: January 11, 2009, 17:28 »
0
The previous statements are true:

http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php

[excluded materials] but shall not include (1) Content that is produced as "work for hire" within the meaning of United States federal copyright legislation or is otherwise the result of a specific commission by a bona fide client of the Supplier evidenced by written agreement where the Content deliverable from such commission is for the personal use of the client and not for resale or license to any other person or entity, except to the extent Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights of the type outlined in the Content License Agreement; (2) Content that is produced for "Editorial" purposes except to the extent the Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights of the type outlined in the Content License Agreement, where "Editorial" means visual reporting to illustrate general interest and specialty stories for information, documentary or photojournalism (but not advertorial) purposes only; (3) Content that is "Rights Managed", which is defined as Content produced by the Supplier and licensed for a fee that is based on one or more limited uses and for which usage history is tracked; (4) Content that is of a category not currently offered for sale by iStockphoto (such as stand alone audio files); or (5) other Content specifically designated by the Supplier and agreed by iStockphoto as being non-exclusive Content.

...nothing shall restrict the Supplier from (i) establishing or maintaining a personal portfolio web-site on which Exclusive Content is posted for the purposes of art display but not the sale or licensing or giving away of rights to the digital Content; or (ii) using Exclusive Content in connection with the sale by Supplier of prints, t-shirts and other merchandise where the sale or licensing or giving away of rights to the digital images or other Content beyond such merchandising use is not involved. (you can sell things as long as you don't license the images outside of iStock)

7 b You further agree that any Exclusive Content that is not accepted by iStockphoto and does not form Accepted Exclusive Content cannot be sold, licensed or otherwise made available to purchasers, licensees or other potential users without the prior written consent of iStockphoto. iStockphoto reserves the right to sell non-accepted Exclusive Content through another site or distribution venue determined by it, the compensation for which will be subject to a new rate schedule agreed between the parties.

-=-=-

You can sell prints, shirts, Etc., editorial or RM. You can't sell the similar images, RF anywhere else, even if it's a photo rejected by iStock. You can sell video or audio or anything else that's not photographer art, if you don't have that material as an exclusive contract with IS, or if they don't sell that type of product.

Exclusive should mean you only sell RF on iStock or the whole idea of a special enhanced payments and "exclusive" content, makes no sense.

I don't see how someone can want to be exclusive and get the benefits and then claim they can sell on other sites as well.

shank_ali

« Reply #35 on: January 12, 2009, 02:22 »
0
My point of contributing to lots of different  micro sites was made if you earn a living at being a photograph and seems the sensible course to follow.
I do see the majority of complaining on istockphoto from exclusive contributors.Loose the crown and upload to the many micro sites now online to make more money.
I use my photography as a hobby and pleased that i make a bit of money at it as well.

« Reply #36 on: January 12, 2009, 09:49 »
0
My point of contributing to lots of different  micro sites was made if you earn a living at being a photograph and seems the sensible course to follow.
I do see the majority of complaining on istockphoto from exclusive contributors.Loose the crown and upload to the many micro sites now online to make more money.
I use my photography as a hobby and pleased that i make a bit of money at it as well.

This may be the new reality for full time contributors if iStock keeps letting exclusive sales slide in the way they're doing now according to the complaints on iStock's forum. Expect a stiff warning from Lobo on said forums to follow for daring to complain in public shortly.

bittersweet

« Reply #37 on: January 12, 2009, 11:04 »
0
My point of contributing to lots of different  micro sites was made if you earn a living at being a photograph and seems the sensible course to follow.
I do see the majority of complaining on istockphoto from exclusive contributors.Loose the crown and upload to the many micro sites now online to make more money.
I use my photography as a hobby and pleased that i make a bit of money at it as well.

This may be the new reality for full time contributors if iStock keeps letting exclusive sales slide in the way they're doing now according to the complaints on iStock's forum. Expect a stiff warning from Lobo on said forums to follow for daring to complain in public shortly.

Seriously. The thread that just got locked did not get locked because of complaining. It got locked because one person was taking his own personal stats and trying to extrapolate them to every other contributor at istock, insisting that istock sales are drastically down because of the BM changes made by the inept IT department, blah blah blah... which there is no possible way for him to know. Any attempt to reason with this person was met with hands over ears and then it deteriorated into childish name calling.

If you consider locking this thread as some kind of prohibition to "complaining in public" then I guess there is no reasoning with you either.

shank_ali

« Reply #38 on: January 12, 2009, 13:45 »
0
Mr JLocke's opinion on why he stays exclusive with istockphoto would be interesting to read.......

bittersweet

« Reply #39 on: January 12, 2009, 13:48 »
0
Mr JLocke's opinion on why he stays exclusive with istockphoto would be interesting to read.......

LOL If you mean he should speculate why the other guy stays exclusive, I think so too.   ;D

« Reply #40 on: January 12, 2009, 14:21 »
0
It is not against Istock exclusive policy to contribute images to other Traditional agencies just not other microsites, it is not even against Alamy terms to put the same RF Miro images on thier site and similars as RM, but is not welcomed by other and could lead to crediting back a sale.
David :)      

It is absolutely against iStock exclusive policy to contribute images to other agencies, traditional or otherwise, if you are licensing RF.  There is no question about that.

shank_ali

« Reply #41 on: January 12, 2009, 14:50 »
0
It is not against Istock exclusive policy to contribute images to other Traditional agencies just not other microsites, it is not even against Alamy terms to put the same RF Miro images on thier site and similars as RM, but is not welcomed by other and could lead to crediting back a sale.
David :)      

It is absolutely against iStock exclusive policy to contribute images to other agencies, traditional or otherwise, if you are licensing RF.  There is no question about that.
I knew that already as did most on here but did not feel the need to say so.Now why do you remain exclusive on istockphoto when you could be earning alot more money submitting your fine work to every micro site on planet earth.

« Reply #42 on: January 12, 2009, 17:51 »
0
I do not see you practicing what you preach, Yuri and other Istock Exclusives also upload Different Images to the traditional sites like Alamy without affecting thier status.
When did Yuri go exclusive? And what other exclusives are you talking about?

Sorry rephrased, "Yuri and some Istock Exclusives", Yuris does contribute to Alamy, and so do some Istock exclusive contributors, and many non exclusive, I will not name anyone as some use different names on Alamy, but a search of the forum here and at Alamy will return some answers.

It is not against Istock exclusive policy to contribute images to other Traditional agencies just not other microsites, it is not even against Alamy terms to put the same RF Miro images on thier site and similars as RM, but is not welcomed by other and could lead to crediting back a sale.
I'm aware of istock policies, and the differences between RM and RF. They were simple questions that only needed simple answers. 1)Yuri is not exclusive, and 2) "unidentified" others.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
53 Replies
11338 Views
Last post February 04, 2012, 03:16
by PinnacleAnimates
Dreamstime- Poor Sales

Started by tab62 « 1 2  All » Off Topic

34 Replies
6536 Views
Last post June 13, 2013, 02:06
by nicku
Fotolia - Poor Sales

Started by tab62 « 1 2 3  All » Adobe Stock

59 Replies
11782 Views
Last post September 11, 2013, 03:33
by OM
24 Replies
4977 Views
Last post December 07, 2013, 18:40
by Ed
76 Replies
11010 Views
Last post November 24, 2014, 17:49
by Rinderart

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results