|
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 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 24
176
« on: November 12, 2011, 23:11 »
Personally I think that the new referral system is a disaster. Complicated, probably voluntary to avoid paying people. Not reliable and financially not interesting. Doing all this work for 20$ doesn't interest me (especially knowing that there is no guarantee that system works).
Before September 2010 I sent many buyers, without using the ridiculous 10$ referral system, simply because I liked IS. Now our relationship is strictly financial so if I can earn one more dollar by sending buyers to another site I'll do it. I'm still exclusive but I don't think there is no future for IS and throwing the crown is only question of time.
I'm curious if you continue to put IS links on yours websites. Do you use IS referral system?
I voted last option.
177
« on: October 27, 2011, 22:16 »
New referral system is on line. IMO it's even worst then before. In past I got few "passive" referrals without doing nothing. Today is not possible anymore. Another thing you should have at least $100 from your referrals to cash out.
In the past I was very surprised to see that IS was the only site I use (not only in microstock world) talking about clearing temporary files systematically.
You have a problem with the site? Solution: Clear your cookies,cache and ...referrals.
BTW, which site has the best referral program today in your opinion?
178
« on: October 11, 2011, 19:27 »
I can't see anyone but exclusives wanting to refer buyers to iStock.
And not even all of them... I'm exclusive but still have accounts on others sites. After September 2010 I send buyers to Shutterstock. Istock should pay me much, much more than 20$ + make the referral system easy and reliable (today it seems you have great chance not to be payed).
179
« on: September 28, 2011, 19:13 »
For all those asking Chad to name names, don't expect a real answer
Chad is the person who, few months before Fotolia introduce subscriptions, explained us how subscription's model was destructive and bad for the stock industry. Later he became a big fan...
180
« on: September 19, 2011, 03:10 »
Since last September brilliant changes made by KKT my sympathy for IS has gone. Especially the grandfathering lie is difficult to forget.
Now my relation is purely based on money. I'm still exclusive here but I haven't sent single customer here for 12 months because competition's referral programs pay better. 6 buyers went to the competition instead of IS .
181
« on: August 19, 2011, 18:14 »
Haven't got it.
These days even sending an email seems to be to complicated for Istock's IT.
Can somebody post the survey's questions here please? I'm curious to know what they still don't know...
Thanks
182
« on: August 05, 2011, 21:42 »
I am working hard to build up my portfolio on other sites right now.
Sorry for hijacking this thread but this is so incredible. Mat, are you saying you are no more exclusive FT contributor?
183
« on: May 27, 2011, 18:23 »
Is it worth to be an exclusive video contributor at iStockphoto?
Absolutely not. I dropped my video exclusivity long time ego and never regret it. Now I sell video on 3 sites. Pond5 alone earns me more money than when I was exclusive. Logic, they sell more and pay 50%. Another interesting thing at Pond: I can fix prices so if I consider a file "Vetta" quality I can increase the price. Shutterstock is not working very well for me and earnings are comparable with IS. I don't upload to Fotolia as I consider them as the worst video (form contributor's side) site.
184
« on: May 08, 2011, 10:27 »
This is definitely an ongoing epic fail:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=4#post6372250
More than two months and he has not been paid for his high res image downloaded from Getty. And not a single word from admins about it, publicly or privately.
Incredible. It seems like nobody from IS staff feels concerned by this kind of problems. How many of us haven't been payed without knowing it? Is this another bug or another way to make more profit?
185
« on: May 05, 2011, 07:27 »
I have dropped video exclusivity long time ago. Never regret it. Only at Pond5 I earn twice I did at IS as exclusive.
For instance I'm still exclusive photographer but probably I will cancel it in few months. Like majority of us I don't like what happens at IS but my real problem is that I don't like others site neither.
Fotolia is even worst than IS! Dreamstime is amateurish. SS - never been fan of subscriptions. Others generate no enough money.
186
« on: April 25, 2011, 07:23 »
His name is James, James Lobo.
187
« on: April 07, 2011, 10:59 »
Did you noticed Pond is selling photos and vector? I think it's an excellent news. I like them a lot. Fair commission (50%), possibility to fix your price. And they sell more of my videos than SS+IS together.
After recant moves at IS, Fotolia and Dreamstime they are only one microstock site I wish success.
188
« on: March 09, 2011, 22:00 »
Micromanaging?
More like sledgehammers wielded by the new team who've 'gone native' very quickly.
And what on earth does this mean :- "Perhaps, I'll get enough honest feedback that I will reopen the thread."
I was writing her a sitemail to ask what 'dishonest' feedback may be but didn't bother sending it as having seeen her implementation of changes to the weekly pimping thread she will obviously do what she has in mind regardless of any feedback, 'honest' or otherwise.
There is an old proverb in my country: "Give a nightstick to a peasant and he is going to think he is a policeman and has to hit somebody"
189
« on: March 09, 2011, 21:34 »
Good for Sean for bringing that up. One of the few people who is high enough up the food chain to be able to post without (too much) fear or reprisal.
Hardly see hide nor hair of the other top exclusives. I am sure they must have opinions about what's going on, but you wouldn't know it by the Istock forums. Or these either, for that matter.
I think there are many of them. They do express their thoughts but discreetly, like Sylvanworks. Or like this person (ex inspector) in his istock's blog page: "I just don't agree with the way iStock is heading and the decisions being made so I couldn't stay officially affiliated with the company." http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?userID=688535?action=view&location=Profile&userID=688535&postID=96305Why do you think the review time is so long?
190
« on: January 20, 2011, 09:58 »
It was just a maintenance. As Istock site is running on Windows 95 the best way to clear cache is restart the server.
191
« on: January 19, 2011, 09:39 »
On Sean's site it says E+ XXXL is 50 but the rogermexico link says they are 35, mine are at 50 now. This is confusing, what is the real price supposed to be?
http://www.istockphoto.com/prices.php
Rogermexico is Istock's employee so I bet Sean's version is correct.
192
« on: January 04, 2011, 06:15 »
Still no news from the OP?
Out of topic : funny, after bashing "anonymity" of other members FD became anonymous...
193
« on: December 30, 2010, 07:38 »
This evening I see a bunch of angry twitter posts from buyers (apparently they're buyers; I don't know the people) as iStock has implemented a time lock - one download every 5 minutes. One comment was that with a lightbox of 38 images that'll take over 3 hours to download.
I assume this is related to the credit card fraud, but if so, how stupid to limit the small numbers of downloads as well as the big batches. So if I need 5 pictures for a project, I download all 5 in 5 minutes and then I go away for hours or days while I work on things. Users of that sort shouldn't have to wait 25 minutes to download their images. It's the sustained numbers of downloads at speed that should be the flag.
I guess this was the best that the skeleton IT staff could come up with over the holidays???
The real problem is that a long term IS's strategy is limited to 5 minutes as well. In last 5 months all moves they made were disastrous. CEO's "Wo-ho" and Lobo's "we are on it" give a good images of the actual Istock: a site out of control.
194
« on: December 04, 2010, 02:40 »
I wanted buy new D7000.
As on some forums I red about video hot spots problem I wanted to be sure if it was only firmware problem. Response is NO. The sensor is completely crap. I checked 3 different, new, cameras in 3 different shops and results were the same. There were dozens of dead or hot pixels, majority red.
Test conditions:
Manual setting, ISO 6400, Speed 1 second, cover on lens - image normally should be completely black
Image taken in the same condition with my old cameras : max 2 pixels
195
« on: November 23, 2010, 09:26 »
I'm not a big fan of DT but have to say this move is very classy. Hat off.
All greedy busters (FT, IS...) can learn a lot from DT in this moment.
196
« on: October 14, 2010, 18:44 »
Great idea. The best is that you can put a link to your site on your profile page on DT, IS... than sell your images cheaper and get 100% commission. Don't understand why "big guns" don't do it. They are known and I'm sure that many buyers go directly to their portfolios. Another good points: acceptance ratio is 100% and not upload limits 
197
« on: August 11, 2010, 21:45 »
No other site, as far as I know, has ever done such a thing.
No matter how big, well known the site, or up-coming and small.
Dear Eireann, I'm so glad to help you. 123Rf did. We got 0.20$ instead of 0.50$ (60% off) "We've been running some promotions with some clients for which we gave completely free credits to them to test drive 123RF.com and our content.
We are paying out $0.20 for these credits, mind you they're free and our customer did not pay for them, we take this cost as part of our marketing and promotion budget and channel them to you instead of giving them away to Google/Yahoo and other advertisers".About IS promotion - our royalties should not be affected. When I offer a gift I pay it with my money.
198
« on: August 11, 2010, 10:36 »
Picmac and Dreamstime seem to be good partners. Both are unprofessional.
How a DT admin can say this on DT forum?
Contributor's question:
" I`m a bit worried about pixmac recent developments: buyers dont have to register or login...making it impossible to pursue copyright infringments."
Tangie's response (DT admin):
"The fact that the buyers do not create accounts does not necessarily mean that they do not provide any data making thus the purchase impossible to track. Our recommendation is to contact Pixmac and ask them for more details".
They have no idea how it works? Dreamstime have signed contracts with theirs partners and this is contributors job to deal with them? We don't even know who they are. There is no list, no details.
199
« on: August 11, 2010, 06:25 »
July was very bad. -35% in earnings compared to June.
Hopefully August rocks so far.
200
« on: August 11, 2010, 06:13 »
"We've introduced easy shopping without registration and are the first agency to do this. "
That'll be great for hunting down license violators. Good luck!
Exactly. Very, very bad idea.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 24
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
