|
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 - ClaridgeJ
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 23
176
« on: December 15, 2012, 12:12 »
Pretty good but I agree. Why try so hard to get into a swamp. Contrary to what many here believe its NOT a good idea to have too much spread, it used to be but not nowdays.
stay lucky.
But you yourself say that iS is doing well for you!
Yeah its doing pretty well actually but Im not submitting for entry, been there 7 years. To start at IS nowdays? just imagine.
177
« on: December 15, 2012, 02:27 »
Well I have always had a 90% acceptance rate here and never any with focus issues., I can guess though that they might have been slight out of focal plane. However why dont you just post some, impossible to judge otherwise. 
178
« on: December 15, 2012, 02:16 »
Pretty good but I agree. Why try so hard to get into a swamp. Contrary to what many here believe its NOT a good idea to have too much spread, it used to be but not nowdays.
stay lucky.
179
« on: December 14, 2012, 07:28 »
Sure! but this is no holiday or anything. Its like this you see. The most prominent agencies decide that we are paid FAR, FAR, too much. So, since we are totally overpaid they decide to change all that. Tweaking the search, w#nking around with the sort, a little bit here and a little bit there, a little bit everywhere, a little bit up and a little bit down. Wait for it! this is the best, we push back the higher percentage earners in the search and let the noobs, ponses and panders be first, that mob we can just throw a few cents, they be happy anyway. Its like a few years back when I described the little monkey playing with himself out in the bush somewhere only this time its got BIGGER! 
180
« on: December 14, 2012, 02:19 »
The thread started by a frustrated long term buyer has now been locked. His post from earlier today about the current state of best match results seems pretty accurate to me:
"I have just come back to have a look at the site after one of my colleagues mentioned that the Zoom function is back. It does look good I must say and seems to load quicker than its previous incarnation.
however, I just wanted to say that there is a lot of talk about how dreadful Best Match is at the moment and how it got even worse.
Ive just taken a good look and searched for the sort of things I normally or typically look for. I just cannot believe it. How can 18 images by the same photographer all in a row of the same subject possibly be part of a legitimate Best Match?
I am sorry, but until this changes for the good (it is truly dreadful at the moment) neither myself nor any of my colleagues are likely to be rushing back here for stock images. Just have a look how well Best Match type seaches work on other sites and perhaps it will be easy to understand why previously dedicated buyers like me (and others) prefer to buy elsewhere at the moment."
So SearchFairy twiddled a few dials and this is the outcome?
It seems to me as long as iStock is a dumping ground for Getty Agency/Vetta files which get a huge advantage in placement (and it was promised when these ingestions began that they'd fix best match so that they didn't all appear up front like new content typically would; so much for that), and on which Getty makes so much more money - paying 20% royalty on content they don't own vs. up to 28% on iStock contributors' content - they have no incentive to fix this even though the results are so awful when you do common searches.
On a separate but related note: I recall many forum discussions where someone would say they got terrible results searching for (some single term) and there'd be a chorus of self-righteous contributors saying that of course you got rubbish; you needed to refine the search with multiple terms. In the course of the discussion about best match results, Rebecca and SearchFairy said that buyers typically use a single search term so showing examples where multiple terms made for horrible results wasn't really pertienent.
If it wasn't so many people's livelihoods, it'd be funny...
Ofcourse! when all their PR avenues has been closed, people didnt fall for it, didnt swallow the garbage, what else? when fighting a losing battle but to close the threads and hide in shame.
181
« on: December 14, 2012, 01:35 »
Istock's signed their own death warrant. *ETA - I posted about istock signing their death warrant and then saw Joe's post saying exactly the same thing. He said it first and best, but great minds think alike )
Here are my feelings, as expressed in the istock thread (for however long they manage to avoid deletion):
Well, I am just going to have to be frank here. Evidently any adjustment to the RC credit system is off the table, and without that, there is no way to regain the good will of most of the contributor community. We are here to sell images and make money, and when the site continues to take a higher and higher percent of our work, there is no way to feel good about that company. Contributors who are also buyers have no incentive to buy here anymore, and none of us have any incentive to refer the site to buyers. Unless this one issue, which is CRUCIAL to contributors bottom lines, is remedied, the site will continue its decline. No amount of communication or (loooong overdue) bug fixes will matter if there are no buyers, and the buyers aren't likely to come back to a place that is paying artists so poorly.
Clearly this thread was an exercise in PR and not a serious effort to repair relations with contributors, because money IS what's going to make us happy.
EXELLENT! and now when all PR avenues are closed, they close the threads and hide in shame. What a load of total and utter bollocks.
182
« on: December 14, 2012, 01:32 »
I don't really see what's the point in focusing on what type of content people should be shooting and uploading to iStock and try to guide them on this now. I am not going to even bother with any of this nonsense they are touting. It is clear the problem is not the lack of the right pictures, but a bad best match mix and a declining number of buyers. Plus you got all this Getty content flooding the site now and dominating the best match whilst burying iStock contributor content even more. This is a joke. Nobody is sitting there thinking about what to shoot and upload anymore. People are thinking more about where else they can go possibly with their existing content to save their livelihood and what to do about the 50% drop in sales they experienced recently because the site is simply a mess. Nobody is thinking of fixing their huge drop in downloads by adding more content to the iStock site. Right now many people are contemplating more about giving up their crowns than investing in another shoot to upload to iStock.
The bottom line is that sales can't get better when iStock is stopping it from getting better. They can put things back to the way they were in the best match when sales were good for long time contributors, but they don't want to and they won't. They will continue to burry top selling iStock images and replace it with Agency and pictures with no views and downloads as they have been doing.
This is just another smoke and mirrors ploy to distract contributors into thinking they are not uploading the right stuff when in fact all the right stuff is there already. It is just that iStock has buried the right stuff 6 feet under and buyers can't find it, which means they are burying their contributors along with it.
Some years back when Bruce sold out. I actually wrote a thread here, mirroring exactly what youve written above and this is the reason why Getty bought IS, to slowly and gradually move their own content over to IS, the dumping ground same as their own, TS. I find the RR and Lobo threads very amusing in fact and was just waiting to see what excuse they would find to close the threads over at IS. The place has become WEIRD.
183
« on: December 13, 2012, 16:21 »
Hardly! having a great day there.
184
« on: December 13, 2012, 14:44 »
I'm just trying to explain (not justify) why it's happened and how SS may well end up going down the same road. Jon Oringer has already said even though the company has grown so have their operating costs, their profits have remained flat, just like iStocks did. The story won't end with iStock or Getty, you have an overall microstock market that has reached maturity, there isn't a single agency that has resisted the temptation to grow profit by reducing royalties. I doubt Shutterstock will be immune, maybe not now but when they can't grab anymore market share or reduce their operating costs.
Exactly. All the photographers currently lining up to wax Oringer's car are setting themselves up for disappointment. Flat profits + new investors = major cost-cutting to come.
Exactly! spot on! its really surprising after all these years to hear some people still believing in the fairy godmother as if 7 years of history here hasnt sunk in one millimeter.
185
« on: December 13, 2012, 12:42 »
What happens when Shutter Stock stop growing?
Same as what happens when you stop growing. Nothing goes up forever however your best chance of maintaining growth is the adherence of good and fair business practices. No point in committing 'business suicide' is there?
Ever heard of the John Lewis Partnership in the UK? For a high-street retailer they're doing amazingly well despite the recession and Johnny Internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership
The shareholders will still want growth in profits and returns on their investment wether SS grow market share or not which will leave only a couple of options. It may be rosy there now but they will experience the same problems as iStock at some point in the future.
The John Lewis Partnership is owned by the employees, completely different to Shutter Stock which is owned by the share holders. Your not an employee of Shutter Stock or a part owner, you don't get a share of the profits, the share holders own the company.
You may experience more sales as they take market share from iStock, but SS and the shareholders keep the extra profit. I think you're confused there.
OOooops! yes, ha, ha, the shareholders? oh well some tend to forget that. Just a minor problem, they will be happy with a bone or something and they wont insist on more profit. Theyre happy just turning burgers at Mac.
186
« on: December 13, 2012, 12:38 »
Well... perhaps we're all masochists or playing 'better the devil you know'... but I'm not really up for exploring other territories right now. Too much else going on in my life. Given the scenario we have in the microstock model at this point, I'd certainly vote for SS over iStock. So I'm (unsurpringly) adding a 'me three' to Gostwyck's post.
Ofcourse we are all here for SS, I was one ( still am ) one who has always been one of their ambassadors, was even accused of that here a few months back. Having said that, going by the past history and track record of all micro, I am not going to allow myself any Euforia and certainly not slowly drift away into a dreamland of security and wonderful revenues past you wildest dreams and all this dpending on one single agency. No Madam.
187
« on: December 13, 2012, 12:30 »
What happens when Shutter Stock stop growing?
Oh Matt dont worry according to some here it will just grow and grow they will buy Getty, Apple and microsoft and become the worlds most successful company, they will make Mr Buffett and the Queen of England look like piss poor idiots and just guess who wioll be the CEO of it all? The rest of us will join the dole que and live under the bridges at Waterloo station or the Brixton card board city. WOOYAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
188
« on: December 13, 2012, 09:08 »
Sigh! talk about being repetative and living in a fools paradise. Yeah all that was also said about IS a year before the big freeze.
I am a bit surprise that YOU of all is so easily bought and by what? a few BMEs? well we have all had that, no big deal at all.
189
« on: December 13, 2012, 08:41 »
My partner who is exclusive at iStock with a decent portfolio of 2000 images (including lots of Vettas) has earned $8 this week. Mine is down to 25% of what it was this time last year, I honestly don't think the management realise the gravity of what is happening over there.
I'm guessing the situation is eating it's way in and will only be a matter of time time before it reaches the top contributors.
What they don't seem to realise is their supply chain is mostly sole traders and that business model is now broken. They may survive a little while as a library but the returns are just not there anymore to make it worth uploading.
The will be a hell of lot more indies next year thats for sure.
Matt. sorry to hear this. The slide has already hit some of the top contributors. I know one with a port of 6K files, big earner and he is down 50% and thats within the last nine months. The problem here and after speaking to some people is probably that Getty simply dont give a c#ap of what happens to IS. I am sure that the suits at Getty view this micro industry as the ones that spoiled it all and thats that. Well in a sense theyre not really far off are they? Its a natural progression. Take SS now after the IPO, etc. I mean how long will it take before the bosses, admin start to relax and look for other business ventures and so on, I would say six months no longer. I also think youre right, there will be an endless stream of indies coming and indies with great commercial ports and the supply will outstrip the demand by 100-1 and thats the end of this business or at least as far as earnings are concerned.
190
« on: December 13, 2012, 07:46 »
Funny this! because whatever happens, good search or bad, whatever. It will never, ever, in 1000 years benefit an independant. Although we outnumber the excl. by 20-1. they still after all these blinding misstakes, errors, issues, whallops,...... that a crown will bring them revenues.
No I dont think that Getty, behind the scenes is masterminding this. I have known them since 93 and frankly they are a quite clever bunch.
I am sure its been left to the IS Admin, which is exactly what bothers me.
And here I am thinking about dropping my crown (after only 5 months) and going back to being an independent. My income may drop but so will my blood pressure. Having my photography income solely in the hands of the train wreck that iStock is becoming is not a pleasant thought.
IMO and after 25 years of supplying in this bloody stock game, one is as good or bad as the other but let me tell you this. I know 4 of my old pals, yes we are old hands you know, some would even call us antiques. In the beginning of 2013, they will pull their ports from every sigle micro agency and I am not talking some neewbie ports here but ports with 5000+ images AND put them into macro-RF or whatever, as long as its not micro.
I myself will hang on a bit more since I want to see the outcome of all this with IS and SS, etc.
Best advice I can give with my humble experience is to start thinking beyond micro, start thinking about getting some value for your craft. Micro is a concept, its riding on its 13th year which really means that the golden halleluja days are over.
But what can you put on macro that already isn't in micro? Unless you have a specialization with access to stuff that few people can get, maybe like oil rigs  , you're probably not going to do well.
Nah forget that! I got much more specialized stuff then oil industry already as RM and RF, selling really well. BTW, I was refering to macro-RF not RF such as in micro.
191
« on: December 13, 2012, 04:37 »
Wow, with her latest response I don't even know where to start.
To summarize
- There are too many of us adding too much content (and there are not enough buyers to keep pace)
- Their business is doing fine
- We should help with marketing (our 60-85% cut to them isn't enough)
So basically, she's saying that looking at their numbers, contributor's falling revenue hasn't affected them financially enough to make any major changes. And until it does they don't plan to do much other than fix broken stuff, communicate more, and ask us for help with marketing.
There, that should keep people happy.
Hmmm. To summarise ... Istock are basically f*cked.
I reckon Rebecca has genuinely looked into the issues, has probably concluded that the RC system is a major part of the problem, has approached her bosses at Getty about it ... and been told to 'f*ck off'. End of.
I doubt that she bothered the bosses at Getty. But it doesn't look like istock are f*cked just yet. I'm sure as that time approaches there will be a new leader that will make another attempt at improving communications.
I think your right. At her level you dont go to your bosses at Getty, you use your own initiative. Further more I dont think Getty gives a * abot IS, really. They have been a thorn in the side of Getty untill they bought the thing. There is no doubt at all that Getty wants the stock world to get back to what it used to be, by listening to some ppl working there its obvious. So why should they pay IS any attention?
192
« on: December 13, 2012, 02:41 »
Funny this! because whatever happens, good search or bad, whatever. It will never, ever, in 1000 years benefit an independant. Although we outnumber the excl. by 20-1. they still after all these blinding misstakes, errors, issues, whallops,...... that a crown will bring them revenues.
No I dont think that Getty, behind the scenes is masterminding this. I have known them since 93 and frankly they are a quite clever bunch.
I am sure its been left to the IS Admin, which is exactly what bothers me.
And here I am thinking about dropping my crown (after only 5 months) and going back to being an independent. My income may drop but so will my blood pressure. Having my photography income solely in the hands of the train wreck that iStock is becoming is not a pleasant thought.
IMO and after 25 years of supplying in this bloody stock game, one is as good or bad as the other but let me tell you this. I know 4 of my old pals, yes we are old hands you know, some would even call us antiques. In the beginning of 2013, they will pull their ports from every sigle micro agency and I am not talking some neewbie ports here but ports with 5000+ images AND put them into macro-RF or whatever, as long as its not micro. I myself will hang on a bit more since I want to see the outcome of all this with IS and SS, etc. Best advice I can give with my humble experience is to start thinking beyond micro, start thinking about getting some value for your craft. Micro is a concept, its riding on its 13th year which really means that the golden halleluja days are over.
193
« on: December 13, 2012, 02:10 »
Hmmm. To summarise ... Istock are basically f*cked.
I reckon Rebecca has genuinely looked into the issues, has probably concluded that the RC system is a major part of the problem, has approached her bosses at Getty about it ... and been told to 'f*ck off'. End of.
You're almost certainly right.
600 posts and we've got nowhere.
"We are meeting our expectations" means nothing.
If I were trying this month to reach $$ I made in December 2007, one year after I started and with 1/7th of the files I have now, I might just reach my expectations - b
ut if the rest of the month is like yesterday and today, I might not.
Set the 'expectations' bar low, and you'll be likely to achieve your aims.
Chain yank, Rebecca; well done.
She has a nice pair of legs though!
194
« on: December 13, 2012, 02:02 »
The problem is you need a big chuck of contributors to pull their portfolio, including the Yuris and Seans of stock.
You know this is one recent phenomena that always annoys me __ the absurd pluralisation of individuals or teams to supposedly make a general point. There is in fact only one Yuri and only one Sean in the context of microstock so we don't need to talk of them as if they were an army of individuals. It's utterly ridiculous.
They do it all the time in football too. All this talk of "the Arsenals and the Man U's" or "the Messi's and the Ronaldos". Arggghhh!
Jezus, I am sorry I got you so annoyed. Its just a figure of speech. Stop * on that lemon dude. It just means you need the top contributors to cooperate. I thought it was a normal way in the English language to illustrate something.
Zodra jij je punt over kan brengen in perfect Nederlands mag je me pakken op mijn verkeerd gebruik van de Engelse taal. Ouwe zuurpruim, krijg lekker het heen en weer.
So you are Dutch? Heineken please
195
« on: December 12, 2012, 16:55 »
Anyone thinking of ditching their crown needs to consider the timing in order to minimise loss of income and give their images the best of starts at the other agencies, most especially at SS. Right now is probably the optimum time to give the 30-day notice or close to it . Sales accelerate sharply from mid-January until the end of March so that's when the demand for new images is at it's peak. Early sales are a huge help in getting images to the top of the sort-order at SS and, as an independent contributor, that's where 50% of your microstock earnings are most likely to be coming from.
Great advice, thanks. Is there a similar high-sales period at SS in Sep-Nov? I ask because my ark is not yet even half-built.
Take it with a pinch of salt. Euforia sets in whenever an exeptional month at SS. I myself had a month during this year where I earned almost 5K, next month under 2K. So you know it varies same as everywhere. SS is great but after the IPO, there are hints in their own forum that things aint what they used to be. I dont know really but something is cooking thats for sure. One of the absoloute best earners at SS is a personal friend of mine and he agree, something is not right? Nothing in micro is to be taken seriously or at face value. Its just a numbers game. Safest bet is to stay where you are and not venture into unknown territory. best.
196
« on: December 12, 2012, 14:00 »
Funny this! because whatever happens, good search or bad, whatever. It will never, ever, in 1000 years benefit an independant. Although we outnumber the excl. by 20-1. they still after all these blinding misstakes, errors, issues, whallops,...... that a crown will bring them revenues.
No I dont think that Getty, behind the scenes is masterminding this. I have known them since 93 and frankly they are a quite clever bunch.
I am sure its been left to the IS Admin, which is exactly what bothers me.
197
« on: December 12, 2012, 10:38 »
The only way contributors are going to see their incomes increase again is if iStock's site traffic goes back up. So you have an oversupplied archive and an under supplied buyer pool.
That means iStock really has to roll up their sleeves, get out there, and push the market by investing in marketing and advertising.
But if they aren't even willing to reach into their fat pockets to hire the right developers to expeditiously fix site problems, then they are never going to spend money on marketing and brand development.
The only brand of value to the owners in terms of promoting at this point is Getty and so iStock is being marginalized.
Best match tweaks are just smoke and mirror fixes to make it look as they are being proactive to the contributors. You can even bring back the contributor acclaimed BM2 and still little will change. No increased traffic, no increased downloads.
Youre right actually! this best match tweak is just a playact. Makes it look as if they are doing something.
198
« on: December 12, 2012, 02:32 »
This best match change is probably going on for some time before its done. I searched an area where myself and Lisa were totally dominant and before we use to have at least 3 pics a piece on page one. Now they are pushed way back and in favour of many pics which are not only irrelevant but also badly keyworded and ONLY because they are shot by exclusives, I mean it dont even show what I searched for.
As I undestood the important thing here was to sort of "save" the company, etc. quality and commercial value should get prefferance, etc? but no. As far as I can see, they are still pushing lots of inferior, irrelevant material way up only because the file carries a crown. Bad call from somebody who wants to sort out a company.
Having said this the best match change might still be under way.
This crown took a hit from the best match tweak today. Several of my files sank several pages in the search order and not a single sale since the 'fix'.
Other than the Agency junk that's clogging up some searches, I think a number of groups took a hit. I have a grand total of 7 sales, all small or XS which is just a ridiculous Tuesday. Sorry you got wiped out temporarily. Once you've experienced these cliff diving episodes, you "get" why people get worked up about playing games with best match order...
The searches still don't look right, although you can see some minor changes from yesterday (I don't monitor them regularly but had been looking at the examples in the best match thread in the last few days).
Well, SIGH! I guess its all so screwed up that its become impossible to even find an algorithm never mind restoring it to normal. Did I make a misstake? didnt RR say something about welcoming independants back, etc? funny way to go about it. All this about their "own" engineers, etc. Whats that supposed to mean, all they have are employees. Why dont they just pay for a team of experts and get it sorted out? Here in Stockholm, a small insignificant picture agency just paid 25K for a search sort out. I suppose they cant afford it.
199
« on: December 11, 2012, 17:39 »
This best match change is probably going on for some time before its done. I searched an area where myself and Lisa were totally dominant and before we use to have at least 3 pics a piece on page one. Now they are pushed way back and in favour of many pics which are not only irrelevant but also badly keyworded and ONLY because they are shot by exclusives, I mean it dont even show what I searched for.
As I undestood the important thing here was to sort of "save" the company, etc. quality and commercial value should get prefferance, etc? but no. As far as I can see, they are still pushing lots of inferior, irrelevant material way up only because the file carries a crown. Bad call from somebody who wants to sort out a company.
Having said this the best match change might still be under way.
200
« on: December 11, 2012, 17:20 »
Is this important to stock photography?
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 23
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
