|
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 - Microstock Posts
Pages: 1 ... 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 ... 53
1076
« on: April 11, 2011, 00:08 »
@ all. I'm impressed with your knowledge of Monty Python. I never really knew how big it was outside of the UK.
My favourite is from the Life of Brian, when Brian addresses the crowd in an attempt to persuade them that he's not the Messiah.
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me, you don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes, we are all different!
Man in Crowd: I'm not.
1077
« on: April 10, 2011, 06:51 »
About a year ago, give or take, I posted a message in the IS forum that was mildly critical of how bulky and time-consuming the upload and keywording process is there (I only have video clips on that particular site). Shortly afterward, I received a message telling me that they will no longer accept submissions from me. Something about they didn't think my work was progressing / developing like they thought it should..., blah, blah, blah. The material that was already in my catalog is still available and continues to sell, and I still have access to my account. I thought about trying to get in as a still photographer, but subsequent events such as restructuring and commission reductions have led me to believe that it would be a waste of time. I find it rather amazing that a critical post in the forum would result in being banned from uploading. I recommend that current contributors avoid it, and post complaints here on MSG instead.
Possibly the two events were unrelated and just coincidence?
I imagine the two things were entirely coincidental, and I think it's a long stretch to suggest a connection. otherwise I can think of many of people who would have also been banned over the years for posting FAR worse comments.
Of course, completely coincidental. They have safeguards in place to make sure that they are fair to their contributors.
1078
« on: April 09, 2011, 14:54 »
If they are only ranked by a dozen or so people, the figures don't really mean much. The figures to the right of this page and on every page are probably more accurate, as I assume they represent a longer period than just the last poll survey.
Unless you have a lot of images ie. 2000 or more (acceptable images), it really isn't worth the time to start uploading to low earning sites. The only ones that I upload to from the low earners (on the right) are Cutcaster and Stockfresh, because I'm hopeful of their success in the future and if they do become successful, it will be more difficult to get stuff online with them.
1079
« on: April 09, 2011, 14:38 »
I uploaded a couple of photos 2 days ago at different times. The first one was reviewed and online in half an hour. The second one is still pending.
1080
« on: April 09, 2011, 02:39 »
Ok, so after being inspired by this thread yesterday, I got brave and called up 3 local production houses to tell them about istock and their poor treatment of contributors. The response I got was quite mixed. Company 1: Thank you for letting us know. We actually do use istock for a lot of our stock needs and I will certainly pass this information along to other producers that we work with. Company 2: They didn't care about what I had to say, treated me like a telemarketer, etc... not that I entirely blame them as this was an unsolicited call. Company 3: Yes we are aware of the issues with istock and have slowly tapered off our use of them. We typically try other stock sites first to see if we can find the subject we need.
I'd suggest using your time to go out and shoot rather than harassing design companies. You sound like a real jerk.
It must be pretty hard for exclusives who enter independent forums to see almost every thread on their sole or major source of artistic income being absolutely battered. Maybe one comfort is that most buyers probably don't read here. However, no other agency is quite getting it like iStock, in terms of negative threads and this is obviously justifiable. Usually people can only take so much before they lash out.
1081
« on: April 07, 2011, 10:01 »
"I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible....Please, we can get along here. We all can get along. I mean, were all stuck here for a while. Lets try to work it out. Lets try to beat it. Lets try to beat it. Lets try to work it out."
1083
« on: April 06, 2011, 16:23 »
^^^ Some very good points Megastock.
I'm pretty sure CanStockPhoto introduced weekly subs packages several years ago. It didn't exactly have the customers falling over each other to buy them though. Probably because 95% of image buyers never knew anything about CanStockPhoto anyway (because they hadn't got the money to do the marketing).
Of course if Dreamstime's customers were to switch to weekly subs instead of PPD ... then the biggest loser would undoubtedly be Dreamstime themselves. We only make money when they make money.
Except we get paid per sub download, which isn't as much as what they get paid which is per sub package bought, as how many buyers won't download their full quota of 10, 25 or 50 images a day? Those who have credits though would generally use them up. There will definitely be a swing towards subs, but it just depends on how large the swing will be to find out how much we lose.
1084
« on: April 06, 2011, 11:57 »
Let's not post any comments on his blog, that'll just give him more fuel.
If he sits there alone crying like a little baby he'll eventually understand that not a lot of people share his views.
haha that's a good point. To personally attack someone out of the blue, who is just getting on with his life and in my opinion is incredibly successful, is truly vile. I'm not sure if I would handle something like this quite as good as Travis is. I'm sure there is something physiological here. Maybe the guy who wrote the blog has been called and labelled a loser so many times in his life, he now projects this same hate on to others. You never know!
1085
« on: April 06, 2011, 09:07 »
I guess they must have "questioned" this before.. I dont believe they want to ruin their business
Maybe they are just following iStock's lead in how to ruin a business.
1086
« on: April 06, 2011, 08:42 »
ah! Seems I wasn't paying attention. I don't know what Dreamstime are thinking of with weekly subscriptions, if it catches on it's going to kill us, unless of course they gain a larger customer base than Shutterstock. The future of microstock, all subs?
They aren't still thinking of weekly subscriptions. They have already implemented it, it's a done deal.
Sorry, I just realised why u thought i didn't realise dt had already implemented it. I meant if it catches on with the other agencies, not with dt. The more I think about it, the more it's infuriating me. This could be worse news than when they cut the commission. That if I remember was supposed to be for our own good, as they needed more to help expand and take over the microstock world. Well that didn't happen and as far as I can make out they haven't climbed positions and I really doubt we are making more money because of commission cuts. My own earnings fell in every quarter of 2010, and the first quarter of this year is only back to the same level of the first quarter of 2010, of course this is also after adding more images. With weekly subscriptions there may be no end to the slide.
1087
« on: April 06, 2011, 06:21 »
ah! Seems I wasn't paying attention. I don't know what Dreamstime are thinking of with weekly subscriptions, if it catches on it's going to kill us, unless of course they gain a larger customer base than Shutterstock. The future of microstock, all subs?
They aren't still thinking of weekly subscriptions. They have already implemented it, it's a done deal.
Yes I know. It was a figure of speech. I mean, profit instigates most decisions. This will dig deep in to credit purchases, if not eliminate them completely. It just doesn't seem wise, but then again what do I know, I've never known anything about making money in microstock. 
1088
« on: April 06, 2011, 04:58 »
Might want to double check (older pages, also) if the changes actually went through. I've tried this on several occasions, but nothing changed. I've sent a support ticket to Dreamstime about this a while ago, but gave up when they didn't address the issue I wrote them about.
It turns out the new prices are only for customers who join the site from this month on. Existing customers are being charged at last year's rate, for the moment. So there are two different price schedules running in tandem. Very strange.
Yes strange. Maybe there will be cases of existing customers opening new accounts so they can get a better deal.
What better deal? A Level 0 costs what a Level 1 used to, and everything else is higher across the board for the new customers. Whether you are an old customer or not you have access to the weekly subscription...
ah! Seems I wasn't paying attention. I don't know what dt are thinking of with weekly subscriptions, if it catches on it's going to kill us, unless of course they gain a larger customer base than ss. The future of microstock, all subs?
1089
« on: April 06, 2011, 04:09 »
Any site can refuse anything for any darn reason, poor composition is a catch all. So is poor lighting, possible color balance and focus not where we think it's best. Also "these type of images don't sell well". So I guess it gets to the point where the reason means nothing. Not attacking 123RF, they all do the same thing, which is ridiculous.
I have always found this to be an issue with 123rf. poor lighting/composition is two reasons, but it's the only button the reviewers seem to have. It doesn't give us an idea of why our images are rejected, so how can we change things if we don't know what is wrong. Anglee, we could do with a few more variants of rejection reasons, or better still a few less rejections.. 
1090
« on: April 06, 2011, 00:07 »
Just had to bring this up to date. The referenced agency just purchased an EL of this Shutterstock image.
Guess I'll stick with people pictures after all. LOL
They bought it on ss?
1091
« on: April 05, 2011, 08:48 »
... $11 seems to be pretty low in comparison to other sites.
Did you forget for a moment that you are speaking about Fotolia?
Lol!
1092
« on: April 05, 2011, 08:45 »
Might want to double check (older pages, also) if the changes actually went through. I've tried this on several occasions, but nothing changed. I've sent a support ticket to Dreamstime about this a while ago, but gave up when they didn't address the issue I wrote them about.
It turns out the new prices are only for customers who join the site from this month on. Existing customers are being charged at last year's rate, for the moment. So there are two different price schedules running in tandem. Very strange.
Yes strange. Maybe there will be cases of existing customers opening new accounts so they can get a better deal.
1093
« on: April 04, 2011, 15:11 »
Everyone who has a complaint about IStock, I would like to give a possible remedy that actually worked for me. I had a situation where I requested my images be removed from ThinkStock and after 6 months of waiting they still were not removed.
So I filed a complaint with the BBB (Better Business Bureau) of Canada.
http://www.bbb.org/canada/
It appears that IStock is eager to keep their A+ rating. In order to do so, they must resolve all complaints. A few days after complaining, my images were down. A great way to get some action taken if you have a legitimate complaint.
If this gets out, which it seems to already have, iStock may need to start hiring more staff.
1094
« on: March 30, 2011, 06:17 »
I admire you for sharing this good post. You have an excellent write up. Thanks a lot!
C&F Quilts
Oh dear, spam alert. These people are so sad.
1095
« on: March 28, 2011, 23:56 »
Just write the MR urself, smudge the writing a little and say it fell in the lake . Great photo Warren, apart from the artifacts of course.
1096
« on: March 14, 2011, 11:51 »
Hi Lola and Komar,
Good day to you.
Kindly write in to [email protected] so that we can assist you in changing/editing keywords for your approved images. For Komar, please re-email us so that we can proceed to edit the keywords for the images that have yet to be amended.
Have a pleasant day!
Cheers,
Anglee
I just did an email search and found the email from Dec 2009, lol my guess was 6 months ago, slightly off there. It seems that one of the images I re-uploaded with new keywords. I just emailed you about the other 2. Thanks Anglee
1097
« on: March 12, 2011, 05:29 »
So, I wanted to make some keyword changes and I see that on their history page it says "when you edit your keywords the image goes back to 'pending' " which to me implies that you CAN edit them, but when you go to their FAQ page it says you can't edit keywords once they are downloaded.
Has anyone been able to email them and have them change some keywords on accepted images?
Thanks all.
You can edit your keywords whilst the image is still pending, but not once accepted. I emailed them once a couple of years back and they changed the keywords for the image I requested. I sent another request for 3 images about 6 months ago, but it was not done, despite getting an email saying that it had.
1098
« on: March 06, 2011, 03:56 »
welcome welcome
good bye, good bye
.. user banned for being a spammer. He was looking to get his 10 posts so his links would show. looks like he only made it to 9 posts. pitty.
Yay! He was doing my head in.
1099
« on: March 04, 2011, 14:55 »
It's quite a nice looking site. I can't forget the name as the initials are the same as my former secondary school. I'll try not to hold that against them. The OP, if he is the owner could introduce himself properly or say what his role is in the company. As he probably realises by now we are such a friendly bunch and welcome newcomers to msg with open arms 
1100
« on: March 04, 2011, 14:14 »
I've never sold anything there, but my attitude on these 'fair trade' sites is that if we want them to become something in the future, we have to at least give them good material - as long as they make it quick and easy to submit.
I agree with that. Very quick and easy to submit now and a great new look. I had one payout on Cutcaster, with less than 100 images. Payout is set at $20.
Pages: 1 ... 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 ... 53
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
