|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - disorderly
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 47 ... 58
1026
« on: September 12, 2010, 11:35 »
I disagree. I of course am thinking of my bottom line, but for me, sometimes it is not always about money, especially when we will be talking about so little, once the changes at IS take place. This has a lot more, for me, to do with not wanting to do business with deceitful, greedy people and when the time is right for me and I choose, I will not want to contribute one single penny to their bottom line. Everyone does what they need to, but I value my self-worth. I am not an abused wife, willing to stay around, take another hit, and say "they didn't really mean it."
I'm right with you. It's often (generally?) a bad idea to act based on emotion, but sometimes that emotion has a rational basis that shouldn't be ignored. Just because I hate and fear a bully doesn't make their bullying acceptable. I prefer to do business with partners, those who treat me with at least a little respect. Haven't felt that way about iStock in a very long time.
1027
« on: September 12, 2010, 10:51 »
The only thing I would take issue with is what I have read over and over in the IS forums, that this action is the "beginning of the end". No, that was when Getty bought Istock, or perhaps when H&F bought Getty, or when they began to relentlessly jack up prices in a worldwide economic depression, and almost certainly when Getty created Thinkstock and started herding IS buyers there. This is not the beginning of the end at all. This is just another BIG step down an already established path of self-destruction.
I agree, Lisa. Getty has a well deserved reputation for strong-arming both artists and clients. This is just the latest in a series of actions to squeeze every last dime. My only hope is that they succeed in destroying themselves without taking too many others with them.
1028
« on: September 12, 2010, 10:18 »
My full portfolio (or as much as they'd accept):
Shutterstock
Fotolia
Dreamstime
123RF
BigStockPhoto
GraphicLeftovers
Still uploading:
Veer
DepositPhotos
1029
« on: September 12, 2010, 10:13 »
Somewhat unrelated but partially motivated by these events, how do you selectively remove photos from IS? I am going to winnow down my files that have not made sales and free them up for other options if they present themselves. Thanks.
Bring up your portfolio display. Click on one of the image thumbnails. Toward the bottom of the page, click on Administration. Type something in the text box (I use 'To quote Popeye, "I've had all I can stands and I can't stands no more!"') and click the Deactivate File button. Repeat. I'm deactivating five images a day, starting with the Dollar Bin. It'll take a while, but on the off chance something happens to change my mind, I won't have done too much damage to my port yet.
1030
« on: September 11, 2010, 19:08 »
You may find an episode of the WNYC radio show On The Media instructive on this question. It was called The Uncanny Valley, and it discussed the problem of CGI getting too close to the real thing and the way we react to it. I remember being a little unnerved by the human characters in Shrek. I was interested to learn that they were made less human looking because of the reaction they got from test audiences.
1031
« on: September 11, 2010, 18:17 »
It's academic, since they'd never do it, but it wouldn't change my mind at all. They're already taking 80 on the dollar; if they can't make a profit on that, they deserve to fail.
1032
« on: September 11, 2010, 16:42 »
Regarding 2 FACTS:
1. With leaving content there you are giving signal to other agencies that they CAN reduce your royalties for 1/4 (25%) too as iStock did. In a word, crap. 2. With leaving your content there you are giving 85% of money to iStock and Getty on any sale your images make. And I say again: crap. Have you come up to those two FACTS?
Why would you leave your content on iStock after changes take effect?
Both of your "facts" are plans for 2011 and beyond; they are not true today, tomorrow or for the next three months. Things may change before then, although I don't hold out much hope. But I would hope that any agency planning such action would see the hostility it engendered and tread very softly.
1033
« on: September 11, 2010, 16:37 »
It's optimistic to expect more at this point. Aside from a few independents pulling their ports immediately, most actions will take time to show a result. A lot of contributors will wait and see; three months is a long time. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that all this advance notice was intended to provide a cooling off period.
In any event, it seems clear that iStock is determined to follow through. What they'll do if they see damage to their bottom line is another question, and one we may see in the new year.
1034
« on: September 11, 2010, 13:35 »
Once I knock out PP sales (got credited this month for both July & August) and a rare EL, it looks like I'm up a little on RPD and flat on DLs. Then again, iStock's been trending down for me all year.
1035
« on: September 11, 2010, 12:54 »
Couldn't say; my last batch (last = both most recent & last they're getting) is still waiting for review after eight days.
1036
« on: September 11, 2010, 11:34 »
I feel like the discussion's over. All that matters are suppliers canceling exclusivity, which won't take effect for a month; suppliers stopping uploading, which will take weeks to register with anybody; buyers shifting to other agencies, which will take months to affect revenues, and which will likely be blamed on Seasonal Affect Disorder or sunspot activities or something other than rejection of the new plan; and suppliers removing content, which I expect to be insignificant. And that ignores everyone who'll delay any action at all until January 1st, and then probably delay even longer to see just how much they lose, at which point they're blame SAD and sunspots, etc.
1037
« on: September 11, 2010, 11:23 »
I need another option. I've started removing my content, but slowly, and starting with Dollar Bin and other nonperformers. At the rate I'm going, it'll be two years before I'm completely gone, and who knows what the situation will be by then?
1038
« on: September 10, 2010, 19:08 »
Fotolia dropped my commission rate twice as I recall, and by just about 20%. Funny how that figure keeps showing up. And to add insult to injury, the last time they did it they offered to undo it. All I had to do was give away a hundred of my top selling images. I wonder how much that would have ended up costing me...
1039
« on: September 10, 2010, 19:00 »
It's not over yet, and it won't be until iStock's changes go into effect and its suppliers and buyers take whatever action they see fit. I'm still optimistic, although not about iStock changing its mind. I'm more and more convinced they feel they have no choice, whether because of greed higher up the chain or because they're overleveraged and can't survive on less. But all that means is that they can't and won't survive. And maybe that's good for the industry as a whole. Maybe it'll show the Get Rich Quick VCs that microstock is a good place to avoid.
As for me, I'm going to keep to my plan. No more uploading, and remove existing images a few at a time. If iStock reverses their changes regarding independents, I'd consider reversing mine.
1040
« on: September 10, 2010, 17:15 »
"Contributors who don't sell exclusively will get a maximum 20 percent royalty instead of a minimum 20 percent royalty in the previous payment scheme."
To be more accurate, "Contributors who don't sell exclusively will get a maximum 20 percent royalty instead of exactly 20 percent royalty in the previous payment scheme." And since the quota to get to that maximum is unachievable by all (or nearly all), "Contributors who don't sell exclusively will get less than 20 percent royalty and as little as 15 percent instead of exactly 20 percent royalty in the previous payment scheme."
1042
« on: September 10, 2010, 10:35 »
Darn, those arrogant IS exclusives will be now at DT!?! 
But maybe not quite so arrogant by the time they arrive. If history's any guide, iStock refugees are going to look awfully shellshocked.
1043
« on: September 10, 2010, 09:53 »
Jonathan,
I can only give you my experience. When I started out, iStock was my best earner. It stayed that way for about three years, although its contribution to the total began sliding from 34% in year one to 30% in year three. Shutterstock overtook iStock in year four, and it's been in the lead ever since. At present iStock is 20% of my total; Shutterstock is 28%, Fotolia is 13%, 123RF & Dreamtime are 9% each, BigStock is 6% and a bunch of smaller fry fill in the rest.
One of the reasons for iStock's decline is their severe upload limits. I shoot a lot of studio stuff these days, and can produce a lot of images from a single shoot. These are sufficiently different that Shutterstock and others will accept quite a few. My SS portfolio is now three times what I have on iStock. Nobody else is as restrictive as iStock, so that ratio will only grow. Or at least it would have; thanks to recent events, I've turned off uploading and begun to delete my first few images from iStock.
Good luck!
1044
« on: September 10, 2010, 09:43 »
I would send them to either Fotolia or Dreamstime. Probably both.
I chose Fotolia in the survey, though, because they pay me a higher percentage, as an emerald.
Honestly Fotolia did something similar in near past...
Even worse, after dropping my commission for the second time, they (Chad) sent me an email offering me a one time bump in levels that would restore my lost commission. All I had to do was give them 100 of my better sellers to their free pool. Needless to say, I declined their kind offer.
1045
« on: September 10, 2010, 08:40 »
I got an email saying thanks for filling out the form , they have processed it and they will now take 30% witholding according to my country's tax treaty. Only problem is I'm an American Citizen, they shouldn't withold anything.
Maybe they have us mixed up borg - due to my Croatian last name. 
They're looking into it,
I got the same email. I noted in my reply that the website claims that my withholding was 0%. They're going to tell me which applies, although it should be 0%.
1046
« on: September 09, 2010, 20:00 »
Why do you say that?
it seems the reviewers are on strike indefinitely. it doesn't matter whether you upload or not. i still have files from the first of the month.
That may just be the US holiday this past weekend. I have a batch from last Friday that's waiting for review, but everything else is caught up.
1047
« on: September 09, 2010, 19:34 »
so, there is really no point to not uploading as a protest strategy.
Why do you say that? I'm not disagreeing necessarily. But I'd expect that sort of protest to take a lot of people over a lot of weeks to get anyone's attention at all. Heck, my upload slots don't open up again for another 24 hours.
1048
« on: September 09, 2010, 19:06 »
I just had 48 accepted. Only 128 left to go.
1049
« on: September 09, 2010, 16:58 »
This thread makes a lot more sense and is much more on topic now I've put him on ignore 
Indeed. You're a wise woman, Lisa. I spent tens of seconds working on a reply before I reached the same conclusion.
1050
« on: September 09, 2010, 16:30 »
It's another to support the artists and vote with your feet. Thank you!
That has got to be the most self-interested moronic comment I've read in this whole debate. Why would anyone contributing to IS want people to go elsewhere and thus damage the artists income?
To point out to iStock management that their actions have consequences? To put every other agency on notice that we're not just sheep to be fleeced? And that's ignoring the very human "screw with me and I'll screw with you" response to being bullied.
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 47 ... 58
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
