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 - jamirae
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 33
226
« on: June 23, 2011, 22:43 »
So, I dropped my exclusivity at iStock last October but so far have only uploaded photos to the other sites. I've been trying to decide if it's worth it or not to upload my vectors (my maps are one of my most popular things in my iStock portfolio) to other sites. It seems the other sites with the subscriptions will be giving away my vectors and I'll be earning less than a dollar on them. I make better at iStock and am thinking about going exclusive for vectors only at iStock. has anyone done this? are some of the sites selling vectors for more and just selling the JPG versions for the cheap price?
(should I have posted this in the illustrations forum?)
227
« on: June 23, 2011, 22:39 »
it's about time.
228
« on: June 23, 2011, 10:16 »
well you know, they have special rules for some people. I special thread can be started when someone hits black diamond or one of the favorites has something special happen - rarely have I seen those threads be locked with a remark of "congrats, now go visit the woo-yay thread."
that has always irritated me. if you're going to have a policy, enforce it consistently.
229
« on: June 23, 2011, 09:01 »
speaking 'woo-yay' -- what's the deal with the PTOTW? do they delete the previous one once a new pimp thread has started? I pretty much lost interest when it was taken over by istock admins.
230
« on: June 22, 2011, 12:47 »
sure! I use zenfolio, though not as much as I should. Presently I use it just to send clients their photos and a way for them to view them in a nice slideshow. You can use my referral code VMR-T9H-6A7 during sign up to save 10% off of a subscription. oh, this is my zenfolio site if you want to see: http://imajphotostudio.com/
231
« on: June 21, 2011, 10:43 »
I agree their watermark sucks, but do you really need 3 threads here on the subject and one on Fotolia?
sigh.
232
« on: June 15, 2011, 17:49 »
I think actually some illustrators at iStock who are doing very well as exclusives would get disappointed as non-exclusives. Some of the illustrations I see are made in a special iStock-"style" that is unique to the site, but those blue flames could easily drown and never make it when uploaded to the other sites, especially this late. At Fotolia for instance, it appears they're not giving any attention to new uploads at the moment.
One of the reasons i hesitate to drop the crown is placement of my bestsellers. These vector files generate anywhere from $1k-$2k a year each for me. I expect them to keep generating for me for at least another 2 more years with minimal loss. Competition seems pretty fierce elsewhere and Im almost afraid they will get lost in the mix. If these files stopped generating for me, the decision would be so much easier.
are you a vector only artist? because you can always stay exclusive as vector artist but drop exclusivity for photo or other. Just something to consider if you are possibly looking at alternatives.
233
« on: June 14, 2011, 15:37 »
I really should have clarified that the majority of my portfolio is vectors. So all these collections are taking more slots up in the front pages and i see less and less vectors on it. Im sure someone is going to jump in here and say there are tons of vectors up in front of searches but these vectors are super sellers and they defy the normal best match in my view.
I don't think there is a "normal" to the best match.
234
« on: June 14, 2011, 13:53 »
I've never really felt that exclusivity was a great deal. It looked a little more appealing with the price increases for exclusives (before the royalty cut), but that obviously was short-lived. But now I think it's fair to ask: Do any exclusives really still feel like their benefiting from the crown anymore?
Absolutely yes.
Unless you have tons of good selling A/V you'd be better off independent. If you just look at how great Shutterstock is doing for everyone and how sales at IS is dropping for most contributors you can see what a bad deal it is. And independents got P+ and we're soon gonna get Vetta as well and then you'll just start pulling your hair out 
I beg to differ. Exlusivity is great for us so far. P+ is a good thing for exlusives as well. If and when we will think exclusivity isn't profitable for us we will be the first to give our crown back.
That's great. I'm glad to see you doing well. It works for some but not others. that's the uniqueness of it all. oh.. and for clarification, you mean E+ for exclusives, right? I think P+ is only for independents, right?
235
« on: June 14, 2011, 13:11 »
Not negativity really, its more frustration, venting frustration over something we cant controle, not even with our magnificent uploads. The power of the picture, stops right there.
agreed. +1.
236
« on: June 13, 2011, 13:32 »
the description says right there that the contrails are from jets and not the eagle. the photographer just claims that she happened to snap the shot of the eagle as it was just in the exact spot to make it look as if the contrails were coming from it, but to the trained eye the angles are obviously all wrong. so it could be real in that she got it just at that point where the contrails appear to be coming from the eagle.
237
« on: June 11, 2011, 18:58 »
My logic dictates that if you have superior quality images, and your competition has inferior quality images it is actually a GOOD thing for you. Am I wrong in my way of thinking ? Low quality getty content = good for us.
not if it drives away the buyers. well, I guess that is okay if it drives them to the other sites that us independents work with.
238
« on: June 10, 2011, 13:39 »
Whats weird is that in many searches, the Vettas promoted on first pages looks like either neewbie stuff or just down out middle of the road stuff. One would have thought in order to show variety and keep the buyers interested, they would have at least made sure the selection of Vettas would be among the better ones.
if it's vetta, it must be good. at least I'm sure that's what the computer sees. I dont think there's a flag in the system for "better vetta" or "middle of the road vetta." 
You are joking, arent you?? Vetta and it must be good? and who decides that? some inspector who himself is exclusive ? Normally the Vettas are in fact good or shall I say above average. Im also seeing a hell of a lot of generics, with extremely low DLs, looking at the same shot, weeks later and still, no more dls.
Thats my whole point! its not enough with a shot beeing just good or great, its got to be cdommercial, selling-power or else its dustbin material.
of course I was being a bit sarcastic, but if the Vetta program worked like it was supposed to work with the really, truly great stuff being added to Vetta and only the really good, artistic stuff (as Vetta claims to be) then it shouldn't be a problem. but sadly it is too subjective by the reviewers. you're exactly right on all the 'generics' that show in Vetta. I totally agree with you.
239
« on: June 10, 2011, 12:01 »
Whats weird is that in many searches, the Vettas promoted on first pages looks like either neewbie stuff or just down out middle of the road stuff. One would have thought in order to show variety and keep the buyers interested, they would have at least made sure the selection of Vettas would be among the better ones.
if it's vetta, it must be good. at least I'm sure that's what the computer sees. I dont think there's a flag in the system for "better vetta" or "middle of the road vetta."
240
« on: June 09, 2011, 13:09 »
So that some can feel better about themselves, above others (that's why aeonf is defending it all the time), but what's it really all about is of course for the agency to get a bigger cut and try to have their contributors by the ball$, terrorizing them to upload more (psychological pressure, not really rewarding as they'd like to show it to be)
Absolutely! This RC business was never about motivating or rewarding better, harder working contributors. It has always been a cash grab for the company. That's all it is. Can't believe there's anyone who still doubts that.
exactly.
241
« on: June 09, 2011, 09:09 »
There's some "EdStock" coming through now: http://www.istockphoto.com/search/editorial
interesting, some of them have the blue Agency icon. what's up with that? does that mean some editorial has a different price point than others?
242
« on: June 08, 2011, 16:25 »
very slow week at iStock. Dreamstime and SS are doing well though.
243
« on: June 08, 2011, 11:28 »
every time there's one of these announcements at iStock I get a bump in sales at DT and SS. purely coincidental, I'm sure, but it makes me smile anyway.
244
« on: June 08, 2011, 09:16 »
Interesting how the Username thing goes. Does that mean they'll be able to shoot up the RC rankings super fast, whereas we are not supposed to be in groups or pairs (we are often told) but there are several couples/groups allowed. I'm sure they wouldn't like it if we formed alliances with others (with a legal agreement) to zoom up the RCs.
I doubt if the RC rankings will matter to them. There will be some fixed arrangement.
That's true. But there will probably be a best match advantage to that single user from having a lot of files, with plenty downloads and a 100% acceptance rate.
Anyway, that's probably academic because the files will enjoy a strong best match boost. Otherwise known as 'files scattered in with every search'. Remember what we were told when Agency was introduced:
In search and Best Match the images will be weighted fairly and will not have a heavier weight than any other file. In other words, you won't find the entire agency collection at the front of every search. You will find some agency collection files scattered in with every search, just the same as you see now for Vetta and exclusive plus files.
hahahhaahah!! ah yes, I laugh out loud everytime I read that little joke of theirs. hahahahhaaha! "weighted fairly"! hahaha.. the joke's on us!
245
« on: June 07, 2011, 18:51 »
It sounds to me like the Getty content that is going to be added is stuff that we can't submit anyways as the normal "iStock" editorial. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Getty dumps into the collection (especially when they are Agency images that never sell and have no place at the top of the best match search), but if these are photos that we can't even upload then it might bring in new/different customers. Plus it opens a door for photographers who want to shoot this type of stuff (celebrities, etc.).
yes, but it begs the question - if they can do it, why can't we?
246
« on: June 07, 2011, 18:48 »
Anyone just get a reminder email about the targets that links to a page you can't access?
whoa.. and a lot more contributors posting on the forum thread that are pissed off. not sure if those posts will get to stay or go, but they are all upset. one ends their post with "shame on istock" .. I couldn't agree more.
247
« on: June 06, 2011, 11:27 »
Lobo* just took out a post altogether that he locked a short while ago - if I were CEO of iStock by dcdp. There was nothing rude or defamatory, just a list of specific suggestions about how to do things differently. They clearly aren't going to permit discussions of that sort, no matter how polite.
* I know lobo locked the post as I read the short "lock it" post he made. I don't know that he deleted the post afterwards, only that the post is gone.
This from the Off Topic forum (Push for gold) Posted By dcdp:
"If I were CEO of iStock, the first 5 things I would change would be ..."
Feel free to add your thoughts here
Posted by Lobo: Sorry. I think you might want to hold off on starting any threads that are liable to just become an offshoot of the main thread. I get where you are coming from but at this point we are going to have to only have one thread going at a time.
Yeah that was me. I chatted back and forth with Lobo about it and accept his reasonings for pulling the post. We may get it up again at a later stage, but for now he's told me he is canning it.
well if it was an "offshoot" why didn't you just repost it in the main thread since it sounds like he is saying that he just didnt want multiple threads on the same topic.
248
« on: June 06, 2011, 11:25 »
okay, you're stereotypes and badmouthing of every nationality is getting old. I dont think we all fit neatly into your mold of how terrible everyone is. we are all unique. can we move on - either back on topic or go start a thread in the off-topic to discuss your views.
249
« on: June 06, 2011, 11:21 »
^Priceless!
250
« on: June 06, 2011, 08:47 »
what i really fail to understand is why all these buyers complain but don't move a finger to find other alternatives.
I'm not sure I get why you think they all stay at iStock
Right. I think the evidence points to buyers leaving. Sales are dropping, views on images are down. Several brave (or maybe lost) buyers even posting their goodbye notes on the forum.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 33
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|