|
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 - SNP
Pages: 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52 [53] 54
1301
« on: February 06, 2010, 13:57 »
^ I think this has drawn the line for most serious contributors, exclusive or not. even the ones who trusted TPTB see the writing on the wall now. me included. ironic way to unite us...but I refuse to participate in what can only be described as a cash grab...what a bloody fiasco, so disappointing
1302
« on: February 06, 2010, 10:21 »
^ yup. but the power lies with contributors, don't opt in...enough of us don't and they can power thinkstock without our images....good luck with that
1303
« on: February 05, 2010, 20:31 »
from Lisafx:
I agree, it's hard to see this latest as anything but pitifully shortsighted.
I will just add to the portion of your post that I highlighted - hopefully non-exclusives will opt out also. Getty lowballed us from the meager .30 we were making and has offered .25 for independents. This is well below the industry standard. Staying opted out is the only way to ensure that the industry standard doesn't drop to meet those insulting low royalties.
***
sorry, didn't mean to exclude independents. I only used exclusives because we're an obvious group since our stuff isn't anywhere else and the 'partner' sites are our only other option if we want sub sales, which thanks, I will pass on if it means subs sales through a half-baked, bumbling for a piece of the pie venture that screams of failed venture before it even leaves the gate. if I am wrong, whatever. then we all win. but I don't think any of us are wrong about the partner program being a great big mess that will not include any of my work. I'm really into being exclusive on iStock - I hope they don't screw it all up with this nonsense for much longer
1304
« on: February 05, 2010, 17:29 »
^ I would only partly agree Lisa. you and a few others maintain a level point of view in forums, but many of the same nay sayers repeatedly have the sky falling with any change announced. no one is going to jump on that. the same people, or many of them anyways, grumbled about best match 2.0, Vetta, and about price increases...and now regarding all three, we're laughing.
the partner program is turning out to be a greedy cash grab by Getty or their bosses, whatever. I don't care who the bad guy is, as long as the bad guy can't touch my images. but many of the problems that were supposedly predicted haven't happened, and sadly HQ have gone back on many of the conditions they said would not be present i.e. searching by contributor, and marketing the partner sites to istock buyers who they claimed weren't even remotely within the same market.
their plan is now exposed for what it is, and maybe they think we're idiots...so hopefully any intelligent exclusives will stay opted out
1305
« on: February 05, 2010, 16:46 »
there are many exclusives who have considered going independent because they see the sales happening elsewhere, in particular sales happening at SS, FT. at first glance, the PP looked like a viable way to reach those markets without losing the perks of the crown. not so. not even close. the more we get into this mess, the more it is obvious that Hellman & Friedman (Getty for all-intents & purposes) are so far removed from the process, they should be hung out to dry the same way they expect us to be.
if I was ever unclear about the way to go, the fog has lifted. exclusives, please, do not opt into this program. educate yourselves please because half the comments in here aren't even accurate -- really read the forums presenting the sides of this issue, here and on istock. forget about vilifying TPTB, they just want to make money too. so let's make it impossible for them to put our work on crap sites, which can't touch SS anyways.
any serious independents planning to go exclusive, stay opted out. stay opted out exclusives. that is the best and only way to accomplish this. seriously.
1306
« on: February 03, 2010, 11:52 »
my portfolio is still there too, we seem to all be in the same boat. the people voicing concern about opting out have been placated, and those of us who were on the fence are now off the fence and also opposed to the PP now. talk about eroding contributor confidence. I don't know what they are trying to do.
thinkstock can't compete with SS as is and I doubt it will ever get to a point when it can compete. the whole thing comes across as poorly planned and rushed. the only thing Getty can do if they want subs is to buy SS (tongue in cheek)....good luck with that. in the meantime, exclusives at istock need to keep their work on istock and istock only if they want their images to grow in terms of value.
I feel for independents deciding which way to go on this one.
1307
« on: December 20, 2009, 00:12 »
you've selected one contributor's Vetta images (many of which are beautiful) and you are suggesting that if you shoot like this, you're guaranteed into Vetta. did you start this thread because you can't get into Vetta?
Vetta is selling well for me, not many images in there. none on black backgrounds with the exception of one portrait, with the subject looking at the camera and not at something above the frame. Vetta has been a real coup in microstock
1308
« on: December 10, 2009, 13:36 »
I wouldn't be surprised if they modify the changes they announced for the canister levels. It seems that the sites often give us really bad news, receive a huge negative reaction, make a small change for the better and then most people think they have been reasonable. It has happened a few times now and is starting to look like a deliberate ploy.
I think they will modify it also...I don't know that I would say it is a malicious ploy, more of a testing the waters scenario
1309
« on: August 22, 2009, 23:06 »
^ I normally agree with that. but I'm not saying anything negative about these images per se, I'm just suggesting they are good stock versus what I believe to be the recipe for Vetta. I think I approached it respectfully and certainly meant no offense to the contributors. frankly one of my own files was nominated for Vetta a couple of months ago and I was a bit incredulous. happy but wondering why THAT file versus some of those I had nominated and had rejected from the exact same series that I felt were much better.
1310
« on: August 21, 2009, 23:10 »
^ I think that is the best point made yet. I would buy vetta as a place for files that required a lot of cost or set up to produce -- but nothing anyone says has or probably could explain some of the files included in vetta. I suppose there is no explanation required, since it is a subjective process, there are bound to be images included that someone at any given moment disagrees with. thanks for everyone's opinions.
1311
« on: August 20, 2009, 20:54 »
do you think as many would sell through Vetta versus how they would have done in the regular collection (in terms of dollars, not dl numbers)? if so, I almost agree with the assertion that buyers will see Vetta files as more unique, but as soon as they sell a lot through Vetta, doesn't that negate the argument?
I wish everyone success in Vetta, I think it is a great business model and they are marketing it well. but I wish the acceptance standards were more obvious and visible in the collection.
1312
« on: August 20, 2009, 16:05 »
well Sean - I'd certainly argue that your images are exceptional. but I would also be a bit worried in the case of some of them that what you are selling in Vetta is less than what you would sell in volume if they were in the regular collection. how many buyers would sooner pay less for a slightly less good stock image? whereas in the case of something more artsy or obscure, they are less likely to find a comparable image in the main collection.
having said that, if this is a move by istock to skim the best of the entire collection into a higher priced collection, with increased royalties to contributors....I like the idea of that. but then what's the point of photos.com etc...?
1313
« on: August 20, 2009, 15:18 »
no further thoughts on Vetta?
1314
« on: August 20, 2009, 15:13 »
I'm sure it has nothing to do with it, but in that vein I'm sure anyone heavily involved in micrstock, including, and most importantly, admins from the various sites haunt these threads quite regularly.
as for the topic at hand, I think we've all but agreed that the test was not much of a test, assuming it happened at all.
1315
« on: August 20, 2009, 14:18 »
rofl...... 
1316
« on: August 20, 2009, 10:58 »
I think Lisa is right. the thing is, it would be impossible to remove subjectivity from the inspection process. and I'm sure they must have policies that favour exclusives in some regards. but I have seen no evidence of this personally and I was non-exclusive for over one year and now exclusive for two. my acceptance rate has improved gradually as my skills improved, but there was no obvious jump.
I believe it really is the borderline images that MIGHT receive slightly more leniency if submitted by exclusive rather than non-exclusive. then again, knowing that inspectors basically get paid a certain amount per image and review thousands and thousands of images a week, all of this speculation is probably just that.
I'd guess they use an assembly line approach to what they are doing, and to suggest they worry about who the contributor is most of the time seems unlikely as they plod through thousands of images, many of which are probably utterly terrible.
1317
« on: August 19, 2009, 22:43 »
thank you....done
1318
« on: August 19, 2009, 22:17 »
okay, I'm sorry...but is this suljo person for real? do I really have to wade through posts like that ALL the time just to get information on this site? I suppose that is the price we pay to speak freely, less moderation = more info and more idiocy I guess.
1319
« on: August 19, 2009, 22:08 »
I think the debate about artsy compared to stock in terms of value is irrelevant here.....to me as long as files in Vetta are EXCEPTIONAL, they deserve to be there. that's what I am looking for. I can appreciate the work, talent and artistic value of an exceptional image, even if I personally dislike it.
what surprises and confuses me about the collection is the number of mediocre files. and yes, of course this is a subjective evaluation, but I'd like to think I can appreciate beautiful, exceptional work even if I don't like it. and mediocrity kind of speaks for itself.
at least Vetta is motivation to do more experimental work, which I have missed as I have become more heavily involved in microstock. hopefully I can get more into the collection once I figure out the secret ingredient.
1320
« on: August 19, 2009, 16:14 »
we don't get to choose the editor/reviewer/inspector or whatever you wish to call them. but otherwise Jonathan, I would agree with what you are saying. and I would also argue that most of the energy spent here complaining and speculating about istock standards and their 'unfair' policies would be better spent learning how to improve images and perhaps on a few self-esteem courses. insecurity makes people awfully nasty and defensive.
1321
« on: August 19, 2009, 13:32 »
^ I didn't mean to oversimplify. but it is a much broader and less likely oversimplification to suggest that non-exclusives are railroaded intentionally. afterall, if a file is good, it will sell and make money for the company. why reject it just to be mean or out of some warped exclusionary principle?
1322
« on: August 19, 2009, 13:09 »
it may be a nice story whitechild, but the OP didn't show great judgment in testing a company and forcing the company to protect itself by publicly libeling istock. there are lots of us, exclusive or not, who deal with rejected files. sometimes the rejections make sense and many times they don't make sense--to us. obviously we felt the files were worthy or we would not submit them for inspection. to suggest that it is policy to reject non-exclusive (or anyone else's) files out of principle or out of malice is ridiculous, especially considering that they make more money if they sell a file via a non-exclusive vs. an exclusive. if you argue that once in a while special consideration is given to prominent, well known contributors or fellow inspectors....I MIGHT buy that. but I would not buy malicious treatment of contributors ever on the part of IS inspectors.
1323
« on: August 19, 2009, 10:55 »
1324
« on: August 19, 2009, 09:52 »
I don't think posting this is in the iStock forum would be that welcome. I am sort of saying that the new baby is a great idea but kind of ugly...that kind of thing doesn't go over too well. I am a huge fan of the Vetta concept and I applaud its rollout in terms of marketing--I think the collection is doing very well. but it also seems that it should not be so elusive to get into given that many of the images in there are basically just stock photos. many images in there really scream Vetta....but many, MANY of them are boring and even mediocre and just NORMAL stock. and it worries me that sometimes on iStock it is who you know and not what you produce. I hope that is not a factor here. I'm not saying it is, I hope it isn't.
I'm by no means a black diamond or anything, but I'm well into gold and performing well so I'm moderately successful on iStock. I also shoot editorial and for a number of magazines, so I am not a noob when it comes to evaluating image quality.
1325
« on: August 18, 2009, 22:43 »
the "enterkeywords" thing really bugs me too...I use Firefox. my dls are bad this week, the site issues seem to be the culprit. what can you do.
Pages: 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52 [53] 54
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
