|
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 - gbalex
Pages: 1 ... 40 41 42 43 44 [45] 46 47 48 49 50 ... 64
1101
« on: April 09, 2013, 01:30 »
I'm not fond of IS (understatement) however I see SS becoming much less contributor friendly of late. This position toward new content (massive rejections) from SS and the new rates on BS just allows IS the breathing room it needs to recover. Sadly IS/GI is clever..... very clever and SS mistakes will allow a recovery for IS/GI. New content is king and who gets the most wins no matter how these companies want to spin the facts making it seem we don't matter......we do in fact we control the content and its flow. This is only my opinion.
I completely agree with your first and last comment's and I think the sites also vastly underestimate the percentage of submitters who buy a significant portion of "our" content. When you treat submitters poorly you also alienate buyers who also submit and they in turn tell their friends. I will not be going back to buy at IS and I am not at all happy about the choices SS is making these days. Starting with their lack of response to major site bugs over a very long period of time, site slanted search changes and the moves at BS. The review process is a joke and they fully expect us to put up with it. Tell me why should we respect or support sites that clearly show no respect or support for us?
1102
« on: April 07, 2013, 11:01 »
I hAve been seeing more and more of these bait and switch sites. The good thing about them is at least they are sending people to the sites to buy, but then again people were attracted to the site in the first place because they were looking for free. Not sure whatnthe conversion of cheapskates to actual buyers is.
I agree, it seems like they are everywhere these days. And the name just blurs public perception toward thinking all images should be and are free even more if they can be found using a search. The thing that bothers me is that I know some of those images that are being given away free to attract people are actually legitimate stock image and I doubt very much that the owners are aware they are being given away free. They are also sites offering free vector images from well known artists. Now how are all of these sites getting these free images? I hope the micro sites are not giving our copyrighted images away "free" under the promotional guise. Remember this response from IS. http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/%27promotional-uses%27-explained/msg152637/#msg152637"'Promotional Uses' Explained Snip: Third-party feeds' frankly just isn't a good term. What it means is that our Business Development team has a partnership with a really cool organization, like Wordpress or Microsoft Office, and we're going to let that partner give away a limited number of free iStock images in order to drive traffic from their users over to our site. These deals are typically only giving away small sizes, and we make sure that you get attribution and links back to your work. We understand that people don't want anything given away for free. But we think there's a real value in having our content seen by as many eyes as possible. We never give away content lightly and we spend a lot of time working out deals with partners that will bring as many new customers to iStock as we can."
1104
« on: April 06, 2013, 12:33 »
1105
« on: April 05, 2013, 12:25 »
Sites often use the subdomain secure.site.com for their shopping cart.
1106
« on: April 05, 2013, 10:59 »
Is it my imagination or have others notice a bit of a slide today. The last three days have been huge for me and today I've had one (1) D/L. Are they mixing it up again?
Yes I have noticed the switch. Last month seemed to be weighted toward the newest files. In fact in March I noticed quite a few new submitters tickled to report that they had new images "some without sales" showing up on the first page of most popular searches. Since my best selling images died in March, I am happy to see them picking up again at the beginning of April.
1108
« on: March 30, 2013, 17:21 »
'm just seeing this change as evidence of the decline of 'microstock'.
It isn't decline, but a gradual evolution. The scrap-bookers, hobby bloggers, church newsletters etc need less cheap (good enough but perhaps not great) content today because they are increasingly getting it for free and have, anyhow, relocated to the social media. Even many companies and official organizations have semi abandoned their websites in favor of FB. Having a website is no longer the big deal that it once was. That and the state of the economy. It's a very different market even compared to 3 or 4 years ago.
The trend for 'authentic' imagery is partly a reaction to the financial crisis. It is about advertising and PR wanting imagery which communicates a perception of trust. It is also about a move towards quality. No surprise given the widely held perception that the crisis was caused by companies which could not be trusted. Instead of all the negativity (this thread and the Stocksy threads) it is much more interesting and constructive to focus on the trends 
Good post and I agree with many of your observations. I do find it ironic that stock companies who have proven through their actions that they are not to be trusted are depending on the vision, resources and hard work of trustworthy photographers to supply images which evoke trust. The incongruity of expectations and actions in regard to suppliers does make Stocksy's mission statement that much more attractive.
1109
« on: March 29, 2013, 13:49 »
Leo your drive has captured my attention. I will check out your hard work to see if it is a fit for me.
Thanks for putting energy into finding a solution and sharing it with the rest of us.
1110
« on: March 28, 2013, 19:24 »
Looks like a good thing to me. Anything that gets away from the 25 cent a dl model thatis devaluing our work is great. Hopefully the royalty rate will be higher than the shutterstock model.
At the present, a good portion of us here cant even participate so im not sure why the royalty rate even matters. I personally think the answer to the question "why come here and announce Offset when we cant participate" is because they know that buyers also participate here. Thats the bottom line, not contributors.
This is one buyer who is evaluating agencies based on their actions and I am in the position to continue to influence other large volume buyers as well!
1111
« on: March 28, 2013, 13:54 »
Thanks for this! I believe the pattern that was very established for my portfolio changed in November and I've maintained earnings (approximately) because of some good one-off EDs and SoDs, but the basic sales trend of subscription and ODs changed for the worse. Maybe the increase in new contributors with some great portfolios, maybe the Google Image changes, maybe the focus on different things after the IPO - not sure. I'll plot the sales from the different categories of downloads once the results for March are in.
Is everyone else seeing the same pattern in those little graphs as I displayed, or is it steadier and more normal for the other contributors?
Steve
Yes I am seeing the same pattern. I think changes in search algorithms are contributing as well. They could also be giving key exclusives a boost in the search by holding our images back long enough in reviews for our images to drop off the map.
1112
« on: March 28, 2013, 13:48 »
Im curious to know how much of it is due to more competition from guys like me that have dropped the crown? There is a longer wait period now than 6 months ago to have your files approved on SS. I think a lot has to do with file visibility with all the influx of new content.
My proven sellers on istock has jumped to the first page in search results on SS in about a months time...
I have a gut feeling that steheap is right. Things are changing at SS in profound ways.
One cause is as VB inc says. Another may be that SS top management is changing (or losing?) its focus. Being a publicly traded company, starting OFFSET, and who knows what else, considering more acquisitions possibly? These things may be turning SS management's attention away from their core business.
The worsening problem with review times (I have 4 vectors which have been waiting for over a month) and the order of reviews (it seems that images are not being reviewed in the order received) and the way these issues have been addressed (or not addressed) may be symptomatic of profound changes at SS, and not changes for the better.
I hope I am wrong.
Yes SS is changing and in my opinion they have lost touch with the core who produced and paid for the tangible assets that allowed them to become successful in the first place. While they leave us out to dry to suffer the numerous downsides caused by key SS decision makers; life is a party for SS and it's staff. Shutterstock's product team does the Harlem Shake (extended version) on Vimeo http (remove to follow link)://vimeo.com/61711297
1113
« on: March 25, 2013, 13:05 »
Hi gbalex,
Our system is pretty straightforward - images are reviewed in the order in which they are received. We have specialists who work on specific queues, such as the vector queue, which I've pointed out in the past. That would apply to videos as well. First-time contributors go through a two-step process, since both IDs need to be approved and their first submissions. Having specialists improves the overall quality of the review.
Sometimes images are escalated to a second-level review if there are questions that require specialized knowledge, a policy call, or specific judgment. That's a good thing - it means that the reviewer is trying to see that the images receive the best decision possible.
Those reviews also occasionally entail one or more support tickets - in other words, there's a back-and-forth exchange between members of the Review team, Support team (also known as Contributor Success) and the contributor to ask for more information about a particular submission. We also work very closely with our legal department to establish and maintain policies regarding trademark, copyright, and fraud prevention to ensure the integrity of the marketplace.
Our turnaround times will generally hover between 2 and 6 days. Our vector queue has been running high lately and our "second level" review will take longer as well, because those reviews are more time consuming and there are specialists working on them. We do shift and add resources if submission volume spikes.
Differences in review times is highly likely to be a difference in queues and whether a more-thorough review was requested for a specific batch of images. Across all content types, our ultimate goal is to provide the highest quality reviews with the lowest turnaround times. Individuals often come to the forums when they're frustrated or having an out-of-the-ordinary experience, but we own that - we want our contributors to have the best experience possible.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
Scott, I am sure you can understand that as contributors we have been talking between ourselves for years and our knowledge base comes from personal experience as well as the experience of other submitters who we know personally and well. When one of us submits isolated fruits and vegetables or generic travel photos with no copyrighted material and it takes 1 day to review and the other submits similar images and it takes 21 days. After 21 days we do not even have to compare image ID numbers to know something is really off in the review process. So yes we know from personal experience that our images are not being reviewed in the order they are received and we know from years of experience that our reviews should be straight forward and easily performed by any competent reviewer. As always actions speak louder than words: "Our system is pretty straightforward - images are reviewed in the order in which they are received." "Sometimes images are escalated to a second-level review if there are questions that require specialized knowledge, a policy call, or specific judgment."
1114
« on: March 23, 2013, 16:08 »
I've not noticed any real delay, @ two days, might be at 3 for my last batch. having a great month, I'm happy.
Thats great for you, but really shocking to find out. Monday I will be on 17 days, as are many others. You have a review in 3 days. If this is general practice then my images will go live somewhere on page wherever, without any chance of every become best sellers. I know its subject related, but these different review times are not fair.
My latest batch all approved in about 14 hours after uploading. Previous batch took about 48 hours. Good stuff!
If a site were to treat all of its submitters fairly they would commit resources to ensure that they offer a level and consistent playing field for each and every submitter. It is clear that this is not the case at SS when some submitters are left without a review for literally weeks and in the same time period others have their content reviewed in 14 hours or less than one day. As previously stated this also gives them a distinct fiscal advantage as far as image placement and thus significantly more sales. Poor show all around SS, you are clearly show favoritism and financial advantage to some submitters while financially snubbing others.
1115
« on: March 21, 2013, 11:59 »
I very much doubt SS has reacted, I bet they've been planning this for some time. Now they have some money from the IPO, they can market this well.
I agree http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/04/01/8403372/index.htm?postversion=2007040409'But technology seems to favor his new competitors. "Our advantage is efficiency," says Shutterstock's Oringer. " And if Getty can use iStockphoto to upsell its customers, why we can't we use higher-priced photos to start moving into its market?" ' http://www.stockphototalk.com/phototalk/2007/12/shutterstock.html'Question: Whats your opinion on the midstock model? Is it possibly "already dead" (Alan Meckler) or is it the future (Bryan Zmijewski)? Additionally, you said in April: "If Getty can use iStockphoto to upsell its customers, why cant we use higher-priced photos to start moving into its market?" Jon Oringer: There is a customer for every price point as long as the value proposition is there. The question is, which are the most important customers to target? And at what time? We are concentrating on our current subscription model as well as footage at this time.
1116
« on: March 21, 2013, 11:57 »
I know full design studios that only have a subscription to SS and that is it. They would and could easily spend about 10 times more on stock images, but they don't need to, because they got most of their demand covered with their subscription. SS has lured the customers in on a simple "as is" kind of business model. Now it is time to make the real money. They are sitting on a gold mine. I predict that if SS opens the opportunity for exclusive content in a premium subscription package they just doubled their revenue in a year or two's time. And further more. I will bet a that this will happen. Anybody want to bet?
Best Y
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/04/01/8403372/index.htm?postversion=2007040409
'But technology seems to favor his new competitors. "Our advantage is efficiency," says Shutterstock's Oringer. "And if Getty can use iStockphoto to upsell its customers, why we can't we use higher-priced photos to start moving into its market?" '
http://www.stockphototalk.com/phototalk/2007/12/shutterstock.html
'Question:
Whats your opinion on the midstock model? Is it possibly "already dead" (Alan Meckler) or is it the future (Bryan Zmijewski)?
Additionally, you said in April: "If Getty can use iStockphoto to upsell its customers, why cant we use higher-priced photos to start moving into its market?"
Jon Oringer: There is a customer for every price point as long as the value proposition is there. The question is, which are the most important customers to target? And at what time? We are concentrating on our current subscription model as well as footage at this time.'
Along comes Offset. http://thenextweb.com/media/2013/03/20/shutterstock-announces-plans-to-launch-offset-a-new-high-end-marketplace-for-stock-photos/
1117
« on: March 15, 2013, 00:42 »
I may be missing something, but I have not found any way to opt out of bridge. If they do not let us opt out of bridge and subs; I will have no choice but to send a message re the greed by closing my account.
My gut tells me they will be pushing large accounts toward BS.
1118
« on: March 14, 2013, 19:01 »
I agree with Sadstock, I have lost all interest in this ruthless corrupt company which lacks business ethics on all levels. I can not say that I am at all surprised by this thread and feel for the OP.
Certainly not scared of them, because I have pulled all of my images from the site.
1119
« on: March 05, 2013, 15:49 »
Would not be surprised to seem them push new large enterprise sales account acquisitions toward BS. Shutterstock's CEO Discusses Q4 2012 Results - Earnings Call Transcript http://seekingalpha.com/article/1214061-shutterstock-s-ceo-discusses-q4-2012-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=2'We finished the year with revenue of $169.6 million representing 41% growth over the prior year and we achieved this growth while delivering adjusted EBITDA of $34.9 million. Alongside this outstanding financial performance we continued to make excellent progress on our three growth strategies, which are increased global penetration; emerging content types; and large enterprises. Lets spend a moment on each of these, starting with global penetration. Given that we represent a small portion of a multi-billion dollar market for commercial imagery, we continue to focus on aggressive customer acquisition. While we have seen strong growth in all major territories we have placed a particular emphasis on the international localization and marketing. snip Finally, as our third area of strategic focus we continue to expand our direct sales effort to large enterprises. As you may recall, over 70% of Fortune 500 companies already have at least one Shutterstock user account. However, the amount that these companies are spending with us is still just a small fraction of their overall spend. Our direct sales team continued to make impressive progress in Q4, closing key master service agreements with large agencies and publishers and steadily growing direct sales revenue. Were excited about the progress we have made with large enterprises during the quarter and look forward to expanding our relationship with these larger companies over time.'
1120
« on: February 28, 2013, 13:31 »
Walmart made profits of $15.7 billion last year and pay their workers minimum wage. History repeats itself people. No reason to expect Shutterstock to treat us like anything other than cheap employees.
If you expect to be treated like trash and you put up with it, they you can also expect that not to change. We teach people how to treat us in large part by showing them what we are willing to put up with.
1121
« on: February 27, 2013, 19:47 »
I am sorry, but it seems you know more then Jon himself. Nobody knows what he is up too.
No matter how fanatic the SS fanboys are, just because they say something doesnt make it true.
I completely agree that none of us know exactly what SS's plans are. However we do have clues as to the direction they are headed based on recent actions, such as changing BS royalties, cutting referral earnings, changing search algorithms, actively putting things in place to attract corporate clients to BS who previously purchased images on SS at a higher cost per sale. I think it is pretty safe to assume that you have lost touch with reality when you ignore relevant actions so that you can convince yourself that things are going to continue to be rosy when signs are increasing that we could be in for more nasty changes. When you ignore multiple negative actions and paint fairly tail scenarios for yourself based on what you want to happen, you are in for a real let down in the future.
1122
« on: February 27, 2013, 16:31 »
A lot of this discussion could be reduced to faith in Jon Oringer - whether you take his pro-contributor statements seriously or regard them as typical CEO spin and hype - and whether you believe he's going to remain in control of the company.
If, for the sake of argument, you remove Oringer from the equation - it seems to me that you're left with a newly-public company and strong pressure to increase profits in the short term. And 2 obvious ways to do that are 1) push subscription models, so that future price increases to buyers don't require paying more to contributors; 2) reduce inspection costs, by discouraging submissions that seem (statistically) unlikely to pay off, and by introducing automated inspections for technical quality.
Only time will tell.
How can you 'remove Oringer from the equation' when he owns 54% of the business? It might be a publically quoted company but, strictly speaking, it is neither publically owned or controlled.
It seems to me that every agency that has gone down the route of reducing contributor royalties, in a bid to boost profits, has experienced the opposite effect. I have no doubt that if SS tries it then the result will be the same. The most effective strategy to grow a microstock enterprise is loyalty to content providers.
Really are you pathologically naive. If you plan on cashing out at the peak. You push the stock prices up by bleeding your contributors until you reach the point of no return and they begin to revolt. Then just before the scheme goes south you cash out! Your first clue will be on the first page of BS. They have begun to push corporate clients to BS by dropping prices and cost per image.
1123
« on: February 22, 2013, 17:19 »
Mine is still up. I would bet that they are making changes to servers and the lack of Captcha is temporary.
1124
« on: February 22, 2013, 11:19 »
Let's be clear, a pay rise for us means a price rise for the buyers.
If you vote for a pay rise then you need to be sure that increasing the subscription rate is something that the market will tolerate, without buyers heading off to TS or BS or elsewhere.
Not necessarily. A pay raise would mean they make less Profit. They would only have to raise prices if they would want to keep the same or more profit numbers technically. They would only be forced to raise prices if they would make no profit.
Get real, how do you think the shareholders' meeting would go when they announce that profits are down because they decided to pay artists more without changing the prices?
At least where I work we do give raises out annually and we are also publicly traded. However, we strive to find ways to become more productive internally in ways that hit the p&l. I am in no way connected to SS but there are always ways to conduct lean assessments of an organization to identify waste, remove it and redeploy process. Raises aren't JUST about increases for contributors=increases for buyers. There is a middle component missing in this dialog....productivity, growth strategies, etc.
Could not agree more.
1125
« on: February 22, 2013, 11:06 »
SSTK is up more than 15% at the moment at $32.33
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SSTK
a guy just got 1k shares, page keep updating, cool stuff
more 6k wow, just for stats (Volume: 88,763)
I used to work in investor relations for a PTRADED Co. My job was to answer call from investors and analyst. From there I worked for the CFO. I sat next to the Blumberg machine and watch our stock price fluctuate by the moment. Trust me stock can fall quicky when they see any potential downside looming.
Pages: 1 ... 40 41 42 43 44 [45] 46 47 48 49 50 ... 64
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
