MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Have you heard of anything about i2istockphotos  (Read 13550 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 19, 2014, 07:33 »
0
I got an e-mail from i2istockphotos which says it accepts photos to sell. Does anyone have any exprerience knnowledge about it?



stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2014, 07:56 »
+19
Why is everyone so desperate to jump into these dodgy start ups?

Have some self respect.

« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2014, 08:16 »
+2
the world is crazy
there are too many crappy agencies, too many crappy Photographers, there are intense competition, and they still continue create agencies ? if ware only have 5 or 10 agencies and the others partner programs everyone earn lots more, but this is just my humble opinion

« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2014, 08:41 »
+2
I am not defending them and have not looked at them yet but every site was a start up at one time and who knows who might provide a service that fills a need and can provide better contributor compensation than existing sites.

I am not saying jump onto any site that comes along but why not take a look and research them. But hey, that is just my opinion.   :)

Just looked and their site looks kind of sad. Trying to navigate around is really a mess. To me it looks like it was just thrown up there to see if they could sell something. 

« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2014, 08:56 »
+3
I don't have an intention to join the site but I was curios about your opinion. If it is a spam or something it is better to warn people from here because I value this forums' opinion and check it before doing something.

« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2014, 08:57 »
+16
Stealing another company's name is not a good way to start.

« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2014, 09:10 »
+11
Stealing another company's name is not a good way to start.


True, they are instantly alienating 50% of the buyers :P

« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2014, 09:28 »
+13
One Istockphoto is already painful enough, there's no need for another one.

« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2014, 09:29 »
+1
They have a long way to go. The keywords Beautiful Woman bring up just 11 images, 10 of which are taken by the same photographer.

But don't snap at the OP - people start up businesses/brands with crappy products every day and end up making millions eg. that odious little pipsqueak Justin

« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2014, 09:56 »
0
One Istockphoto is already painful enough, there's no need for another one.


I think they were referring to this site
http://i2iphoto.com

« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2014, 10:59 »
+4
Looking at the small amount of work already there, I can't see any reason to be optimistic about the site's prospects, whatever its name is.

The whole thing looks very familiar - I tried to find an old thread where someone came here saying lots of photographers were signing up and we should all join. It used the same software as this site (different name) and there were just two contributors (one of whom had all but a handful of the images).

Here's the photographer list from the current site

http://www.i2istockphotos.com/store/members/users_list.php

All the general questions apply - why would anyone buy from this site versus all the established ones? They are offering 40% royalty and images sell for 1 to 4 credits (but I can't find the prices for a credit). They are also offering advertising on the site, which I take as a very negative sign.

If you sort by most downloaded, apparently 3 images have had one download each.

I wish I could find the earlier thread as I think this is just a retread of an earlier time-wasting site.

« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2014, 12:22 »
+1
They are using the same web template as StockTal and ezMediArt... Seems to be very popular at the moment.

« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2014, 12:36 »
0
Why is everyone so desperate to jump into these dodgy start ups?

Have some self respect.

Amen!! I have so often wondered the same thing. "...has anyone had any sales yet on GlitchStock?"

« Reply #13 on: November 11, 2014, 17:43 »
-17
Hi Jo

I own i2istockphotos.com and how misinformed you are.

Its a perfectly legit site.  We have our own photos that no one else has ( over 100, 000 ) which we are currently catagorising and will be uploading shortly.  If other photographers want to upload their photos we pay 50% to the photographer.

We have spent considerable amount on developing our own software and we own our own server which is superfast.  We also have unlimited funds to continue for at least the next 10 years even if we never sell a single photo, which we will.

Yes we are small at the moment but at least we are bigger than you Jo Ann Snover.

Thanks.

Looking at the small amount of work already there, I can't see any reason to be optimistic about the site's prospects, whatever its name is.

The whole thing looks very familiar - I tried to find an old thread where someone came here saying lots of photographers were signing up and we should all join. It used the same software as this site (different name) and there were just two contributors (one of whom had all but a handful of the images).

Here's the photographer list from the current site

newbielink:http://www.i2istockphotos.com/store/members/users_list.php [nonactive]

All the general questions apply - why would anyone buy from this site versus all the established ones? They are offering 40% royalty and images sell for 1 to 4 credits (but I can't find the prices for a credit). They are also offering advertising on the site, which I take as a very negative sign.

If you sort by most downloaded, apparently 3 images have had one download each.

I wish I could find the earlier thread as I think this is just a retread of an earlier time-wasting site.

« Reply #14 on: November 11, 2014, 17:57 »
+13
Wow - dismissing Jo Ann with a cheap comment like that will not win you any friends here.

Buffalo Bill

« Reply #15 on: November 11, 2014, 17:59 »
+2
Hi Jo

I own i2istockphotos.com and how misinformed you are.

Its a perfectly legit site.  We have our own photos that no one else has ( over 100, 000 ) which we are currently catagorising and will be uploading shortly.  If other photographers want to upload their photos we pay 50% to the photographer.

We have spent considerable amount on developing our own software and we own our own server which is superfast.  We also have unlimited funds to continue for at least the next 10 years even if we never sell a single photo, which we will.

Yes we are small at the moment but at least we are bigger than you Jo Ann Snover.

Thanks.

Looking at the small amount of work already there, I can't see any reason to be optimistic about the site's prospects, whatever its name is.

The whole thing looks very familiar - I tried to find an old thread where someone came here saying lots of photographers were signing up and we should all join. It used the same software as this site (different name) and there were just two contributors (one of whom had all but a handful of the images).

Here's the photographer list from the current site

http://www.i2istockphotos.com/store/members/users_list.php

All the general questions apply - why would anyone buy from this site versus all the established ones? They are offering 40% royalty and images sell for 1 to 4 credits (but I can't find the prices for a credit). They are also offering advertising on the site, which I take as a very negative sign.

If you sort by most downloaded, apparently 3 images have had one download each.

I wish I could find the earlier thread as I think this is just a retread of an earlier time-wasting site.



As the owner you shouldn't be attacking MSG members, especially well established ones, but instead answer our 'concerns' and tell us what your short term and long term goals are and how you plan on getting there. We all went new companies to be successful it benefits everyone.  Look at Canva for example- you can learn from us...

BB
« Last Edit: November 11, 2014, 18:09 by Buffalo Bill »

« Reply #16 on: November 11, 2014, 17:59 »
+4
Wow - dismissing Jo Ann with a cheap comment like that will not win you any friends here.

You beat me to the punch. It seems that someone starting a business should have thicker skin considering the fact that Jo Ann was only bringing up points that many of us were already wondering.

« Reply #17 on: November 11, 2014, 19:03 »
0
Site looks * "not good". Even the logo is wrong scaled. No favicon.. not my taste. I will have a look again another day.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #18 on: November 11, 2014, 20:24 »
0
Wow - dismissing Jo Ann with a cheap comment like that will not win you any friends here.
Handsome is as handsome does.

« Reply #19 on: November 12, 2014, 02:59 »
+5
Very Stocktal-like attitude. :(

« Reply #20 on: November 12, 2014, 03:14 »
+2
Whow, what a bad introduction by a site owner. Jo Ann just summarised all the logical questions people will have.

Who will want to work with a place that has such an emotional manager?

There are many start ups to choose from, why should the suppliers back you??

« Reply #21 on: November 12, 2014, 03:16 »
0
Very Stocktal-like attitude. :(
;D agree

« Reply #22 on: November 12, 2014, 03:24 »
+2
We have our own photos that no one else has ( over 100, 000 ) which we are currently catagorising and will be uploading shortly.

You mean you have 100,000 unique images of badly isolated salad with color casts in the shadows, keyworded with "beer making"? Yeah, I am sure customers are just waiting for that. It's understandable that you don't really need us contributors for that.

Good luck.

« Reply #23 on: November 12, 2014, 06:26 »
0
Hi Jo

I own i2istockphotos.com and how misinformed you are.

Its a perfectly legit site.  We have our own photos that no one else has ( over 100, 000 ) which we are currently catagorising and will be uploading shortly.  If other photographers want to upload their photos we pay 50% to the photographer.

We have spent considerable amount on developing our own software and we own our own server which is superfast.  We also have unlimited funds to continue for at least the next 10 years even if we never sell a single photo, which we will.

Yes we are small at the moment but at least we are bigger than you Jo Ann Snover.

Thanks.

Looking at the small amount of work already there, I can't see any reason to be optimistic about the site's prospects, whatever its name is.

The whole thing looks very familiar - I tried to find an old thread where someone came here saying lots of photographers were signing up and we should all join. It used the same software as this site (different name) and there were just two contributors (one of whom had all but a handful of the images).

Here's the photographer list from the current site

newbielink:http://www.i2istockphotos.com/store/members/users_list.php [nonactive]

All the general questions apply - why would anyone buy from this site versus all the established ones? They are offering 40% royalty and images sell for 1 to 4 credits (but I can't find the prices for a credit). They are also offering advertising on the site, which I take as a very negative sign.

If you sort by most downloaded, apparently 3 images have had one download each.

I wish I could find the earlier thread as I think this is just a retread of an earlier time-wasting site.



As the owner you shouldn't be attacking MSG members, especially well established ones, but instead answer our 'concerns' and tell us what your short term and long term goals are and how you plan on getting there. We all went new companies to be successful it benefits everyone.  Look at Canva for example- you can learn from us...

BB
Hi Jo

I own i2istockphotos.com and how misinformed you are.

Its a perfectly legit site.  We have our own photos that no one else has ( over 100, 000 ) which we are currently catagorising and will be uploading shortly.  If other photographers want to upload their photos we pay 50% to the photographer.

We have spent considerable amount on developing our own software and we own our own server which is superfast.  We also have unlimited funds to continue for at least the next 10 years even if we never sell a single photo, which we will.

Yes we are small at the moment but at least we are bigger than you Jo Ann Snover.

Thanks.

Looking at the small amount of work already there, I can't see any reason to be optimistic about the site's prospects, whatever its name is.

The whole thing looks very familiar - I tried to find an old thread where someone came here saying lots of photographers were signing up and we should all join. It used the same software as this site (different name) and there were just two contributors (one of whom had all but a handful of the images).

Here's the photographer list from the current site

newbielink:http://www.i2istockphotos.com/store/members/users_list.php [nonactive]

All the general questions apply - why would anyone buy from this site versus all the established ones? They are offering 40% royalty and images sell for 1 to 4 credits (but I can't find the prices for a credit). They are also offering advertising on the site, which I take as a very negative sign.

If you sort by most downloaded, apparently 3 images have had one download each.

I wish I could find the earlier thread as I think this is just a retread of an earlier time-wasting site.



As the owner you shouldn't be attacking MSG members, especially well established ones, but instead answer our 'concerns' and tell us what your short term and long term goals are and how you plan on getting there. We all went new companies to be successful it benefits everyone.  Look at Canva for example- you can learn from us...

BB


Hi Buffalo

I agree with you entirely and no offense intended but as an established member one shouldnt make off handed sweeping statements particularily if they are wrong.

As I said we pay 50% not 40% - we have over 23 contributers not 2 - there is a flavicon I put it there myself 2 years ago and looking at it now - as to the design thats fair comment if some people dont like it, there are some parts I dont like, however it is designed like that for a reason. I am sure it will be tweaked as time goes on.

As to advertising like on this page - as long as its not overwhelming I dont see that as a problem.  I might add we dont need advertising but we will certainly consider it.

At the end of the day we are 100% behind our contributers and are just one of many many platforms where photographers can sell their photos.

JH


« Reply #24 on: November 12, 2014, 09:07 »
+1
If I want a coffee - I'll go to a cafe, not in the car dealership. And there are waaaaaay to many cafes with reputation already. And some dealerships are not quite hospital, just "looking for business".

...I have a hard time understanding whether this new business welcomes new "contributers"


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
10478 Views
Last post February 29, 2012, 14:49
by CD123
32 Replies
14105 Views
Last post May 02, 2010, 15:00
by chellyar
7 Replies
6281 Views
Last post March 02, 2011, 18:49
by louoates
23 Replies
13833 Views
Last post February 24, 2016, 08:17
by stefanocarocci
5 Replies
3162 Views
Last post June 22, 2019, 05:07
by georgep7

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle