|
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 - rene
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 24
126
« on: November 18, 2013, 19:01 »
Sure, it's better then nothing.
But I still remember the grandfathering promise from 2010. They convinced me to became exclusive and few month later my promised 'canister' became another color icon without any value.
I don't trust them.
127
« on: November 14, 2013, 23:19 »
I have never been a big fan of Yuri's photographic work (visible on stock sites). He produces rather boring, not original work because this is what apparently buyers want. But I thought he was able to do much better, for his pleasure. In this video I saw a fortunate amateur who discovered panning and possibility of changing lens at dsrl camera. I think the title: "Photographer who travel with 24000W strobes in the trunk of his Porsche Cayenne" fits better to his profile 
128
« on: November 09, 2013, 18:17 »
Me. Never regret it.
129
« on: November 05, 2013, 21:40 »
I checked Microstock poll results and was very surprised to see the new classification, especially 'Self-hosted' (Symbiostock) on third position. If it is true, it is a revolution and very good news but I am rather skeptical.
Any thoughts?
130
« on: November 01, 2013, 19:57 »
I still have my crown :-) my Clapper will be gone on Oct.11 As far as I know video's that are at Getty will remain there even after you drop exclusivity. You will drop from 25% to 20% on Getty earnings. Of course I say this tongue in cheek as they can change and do to you whatever they want so nothing is guaranteed! I a still not thrilled with the sub prices at SS so I will keep my photos exclusive at IS for a while as photos are not my main focus. I am thrilled to be offering my full medical collection at SS and Pond5 in October, all of my clips are already loaded, keyworded and approved so all I have to do is flip the switch when my 30 days are up.
On iStock you have written you didn't drop the crown and you are happy to be an exclusive artist. Are you the same Jjneff?
131
« on: October 28, 2013, 11:09 »
Explain to me again why we would want to start supporting a site who has a) no video sales history and b) is offering a lower commission to the current market leader Pond5? Pond5 is offering 50% of the sale ... why would we want to help create competition for them. It's in our best interest to keep the buyers there...
Exactly. In addition we can fix prices ourselves at Pond - no need 'levels'. DT will not get any videos from me unless they pay 60% commission.
132
« on: September 24, 2013, 17:15 »
Try 'Fresh Match' with Vetta images. Yuri's fan club.
These guys are not smart, they are not even able to make things in more 'discrete' way.
133
« on: August 27, 2013, 11:02 »
It seems they 'fixed' videos rate. Default was 32% and now is only 25%.
But they didn't touch exclusive rates for photos. Still start at 22% and end at 30%.
I think Lisa's story with the dog and toothpaste makes sens.
134
« on: August 26, 2013, 02:17 »
Stocksy is a newcomer but after almost half year probably most active contributors should have sales.
I like the idea of co-op and all artistic and human approach of this site. But what about a business side?
I'm seriously considering to invest my time and money to participate but is it worth? Do they have any chance to be successful?
Any thoughts after 5 months?
135
« on: August 26, 2013, 01:41 »
I started upload to Pond few months ago. For instance only 20% of my portfolio is here.
I have only few sales per month but they are slowly increasing. They are doing better than Alamy for me. Strange thing: the majority of my downloads are editorial.
I set all my prices under iStock prices (main collection). I try to send buyers here and sink iStock ;-). Even with lower prices I get much better commissions than with others microstock sites.
For video they are the best but for photo we should be patient...
136
« on: August 22, 2013, 09:48 »
I almost forgot an old typo: rates at the official iStock page ( http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/rate-schedule) are wrong. To fix it probably 1 min will be enough as we are talking about not more than 100 characters. This problem is known for at least 2 months. Not very professional. But what is really incredible for me is this statement, from iStock admin Kevinjay: "As noted, the info on the Royalty Rate page is incorrect in places. It's a known issue and will be remedied at some point but thus far has not been a priority. If you have any queries about the royalty rates, please contact Contributor Relations." ( http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355808&page=1) Is my understanding of English wrong or is this guy saying that official website is full of crap but they don't care?
137
« on: July 25, 2013, 22:05 »
So if I understand well Hasselblad sacked Yuri and he will be sponsored by Nokia. Preference for sinking ships? 
138
« on: July 24, 2013, 20:54 »
I read topics about impacts of deleting files and especially D-Day. Many good points for both, pro and cons. I understand perfectly people who hesitating.
I propose to create D-Days, on monthly or bi-monthly basis. For example every 13th of each month. Instead of deleting files we have decided to deactivate anyway (for different reasons like protest, quality, better performance on other site etc), we wait and delete them only on one day of the month.
I cannot see any cons. And advantages are there:
- it is not more individual but collective action.
- we can use 'D-Days' term for "our" communication
- sites should monitor different operation. Huge increase of deactivation will remain sites not to go too far
- good for my spiritual health
- costless
We can start with Fotolia... Are you available on 28th?
139
« on: July 24, 2013, 19:11 »
Delete files only if it makes you happy. There is no evidence that D-Day had any effect whatsoever on iStock, but some people were very happy to take certain files out of possible abuse on other sites.
Sad to say it, but I think this is right. D-Day was a great idea, but didn't turn out to accomplish anything. I don't plan on tilting at anymore windmills. Just going to turn the majority of my efforts elsewhere.
I'm not so sure. We hoped an immediate effect, like step back and it didn't happen. I think D-Day and all bad noise around iStock (and FT) contribute to their decline. I'm in charge of 5 designers and very often we hire PR agencies. I asked them to NOT select any images from iStock/Getty for our projects. I couldn't tell them that the reason was I don't like them. I used objective arguments like: too expensive, bad performance of research engine, IT problems and high risk of images been deleted. Yes, I told them that many contributors were unhappy and the risk to not find selected images. I can guarantee you that this argument speaks. If after the whole and long process of validation you try to download the high resolution version and it's not more there...
140
« on: July 14, 2013, 19:21 »
I wouldn't be surprised if they work on scripts which include only a fraction of our sales. These guys don't know what ethic means. We have absolutely no possibility to check if we have been correctly paid.
Since last price change I get a third what I used to and their revenues should be much lower too. To balance they should pay us less.
141
« on: June 15, 2013, 00:40 »
Maybe it was there before but today I saw on Getty's home page a promo with direct link to Thinkstock. For those who think iStock has a future...
142
« on: May 26, 2013, 06:16 »
143
« on: April 18, 2013, 01:16 »
Yeah, not so easy.
That's why I decided to make it a little bit easier and outsourcing a part of work to iStock. Why should I spend a lot of time selecting and checking at 100% details of all photos? Looking for sensor spots, purple fringing, logos on jeans' buttons, noise?
The excellent reviewers are here, they can do this job for me. They are paid over 80% for this. I was to respectful with them.
I estimate my gain to 3 hours/month.
144
« on: March 29, 2013, 23:51 »
Stocksy 1 : 0 Offset
For instance Stocksy looks more attractive IMO. The prices are more affordable, adapted to freelancers pockets.
Exclusivity is a good idea too. Buyers often are considered as idiots. I'm buyer too and don't appreciate the fact that the same product could be find for 100 times less (or rather that I'm paying 100 times more then regular price).
I like Stocky's sustainable approach. I like the fact they accepted photos not 100% matching with theirs standards from contributors, excellent photographers btw, who needed help. Finally a little dose of humanity in stock business.
145
« on: March 29, 2013, 23:21 »
My vote goes to Pond5 - friendly and fair agency IMO.
BTW I don't understand how SS could be consider as "friendly" or fair, I cannot find one reason for... Probably I'm not enough smart.
146
« on: February 20, 2013, 23:10 »
The key phrase is "founding photographers". You can be way above black diamond IS and be told "no thanks" from what I hear. Which means the "founding photographers" will be given certain advantages.
If I was Bruce I would say 'no thanks' to all contributors, included black diamonds, posted all "exited" "F5" "great news" in iStockapocalypse thread. Is simply disgusting. How these people could participate to this masquerade after what has been done to SjLocke (aka Robin Hood)?
147
« on: February 03, 2013, 00:03 »
For instant I removed only 15. I dropped my crown few days ago and thinking about long term strategy, if I remove only some categories of images or the whole portfolio.
148
« on: January 31, 2013, 19:35 »
So there is no guarantee it will stop.
What is interesting for me it's that the communication job is now made by Lobo. Lobo is not an iStock employee, he is a contractor.
149
« on: January 26, 2013, 03:37 »
I'm 100% for 2nd Feb idea. The problem is that the impact could be low. How many people, buyers are aware of what happens? Many stunning images will be removed from iStock but how to see what's gone? iStock has advantage because you can see what is exclusive there but no way to see what is missing. It is not completely true because DT and FT have few exclusive images but nothing serious.
My idea would be to create site/page where we could upload watermarked images with link to sites where to buy them (in my case SS). These images should be NOT available at IS/Getty and be rather unique. A kind of high quality library: "Vendetta images library - masterpieces not present at iStock".
The problem is that probably the majority of sites, like Flickr, forbids watermarked images and links...
Ideas?
BTW, my crown is gone. Viva liberta!
150
« on: January 24, 2013, 07:42 »
Unfortunately I don't think you pulling your content from Istock is going to hurt anyone but yourselves but once again I respect everyone's right to do as they choose and those that do pull their entire collection I applaud.
Jonathan, my relation with my models, professionals and "free" (family, neighbors, friends...) is based on trust. It is very important for me. This was one of the reason to become exclusive at iStock - control of images with people. I knew that there was a risk and I clearly explained this to my models before signing releases. But this risk was limited. Now the risk is huge. I don't what to see people who trusted my suffering because two morons signed a contract they shouldn't. No choice, these images have to be removed before it is too late.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 24
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
