|
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 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 54
251
« on: November 30, 2011, 16:24 »
I had to try three times to log in just now. kept getting the "whoops" page. and sales are abysmal if balance is any indicator. so now I don't even know if I am getting sales. I should have more than half my days worth of downloads by now. brutal.
252
« on: November 29, 2011, 17:38 »
ROFLMAO - yup, seems so.
253
« on: November 29, 2011, 17:35 »
If I remember correctly, live sales reporting (as in instant updates to the stats page) did not break, it was discontinued because it consumed too many resources. That was a long, long time ago.
I remembered it being reported by contributors first, but that was in my early iStock days. in any case, Lobo has said "conspiracies about monthly reporting can hit the bricks."
254
« on: November 29, 2011, 16:25 »
now you've all got me convinced this is a harbinger to monthly reporting. I certainly hope it isn't. the live stats debacle is still fresh enough in my mind and it did in fact finish off the era of live stats, which never returned.
255
« on: November 29, 2011, 14:41 »
I'm worried that they have to calculate royalties. I'd hoped they were being tallied automatically somewhere in the back end at the correct royalty percentage. just means a whole bunch of accounting work to make sure I'm receiving the correct royalty difference.
What's disturbing to me is the fact that the broken Istock works similarly to the correctly working Thinkstock and Getty Images in regards to sales reporting. Instead of transparent reporting of sales when they happen, everything is now opaque. I know I'm being a conspiracy theorist but its tough not to be these days.
I'm not thinking in terms of a conspiracy. I think the site is more broken than we're being told though. these are major bugs, not just minor inconveniences. there's no way we should lose access to our sales data for extended periods of time. I'm jumping to a huge conclusion, but I would not support a move to sales reporting like Getty does. I want to see my individual sales stats daily. it really scares me that they're playing with the upload system and clearly all sorts of back ends systems. adding technical issues and site overhauls as factors influencing sales in an already poor economy certainly is no recipe for success....iStock needs to leave well enough alone now.
256
« on: November 29, 2011, 14:25 »
I'm worried that they have to calculate royalties. I'd hoped they were being tallied automatically somewhere in the back end at the correct royalty percentage. just means a whole bunch of accounting work to make sure I'm receiving the correct royalty difference. ETA: and sales yesterday and today suck. could it be that every second page load produces a white screen?  apparently customers have reported not being able to purchase too (take that with a grain of salt, I didn't read the post myself, another contributor mentioned it to me)
257
« on: November 29, 2011, 14:00 »
^ um, you're one of the biggest trolls here. your posts are negative, inflammatory, and ill-informed most of the time. far be it for me to defend some of gostwyck's more aggressive posts, but I'd take his input and loop's any day, since they're actually invested and experienced in microstock. you have what...26 files on iStock?
258
« on: November 28, 2011, 19:25 »
The ones I know, dont care. Why would a local competitor advertise with their team? And if someone from overseas uses it, it doesnt affect their business. I always explain in detail what stock is and that we cannot control who buys the file. Local baker, vet, restaurant, car repair, school teacher..only the generic images would probably be bought by any competition and if it is generic it wont affect them.
Ive seen a lot of photographers do these "real people working in real environments" shots.
You think they don't care, until it happens. I did a favor for a friend and did a series of him doing his trade job for their website, and he signed a release. They were good with the whole stock thing. Series goes up, a couple images get sales, and wallah - they show up on a competitors website here in town. She paid me cash in return for taking them down.
I've all but stopped using people I know as models, mostly because I've read comments like this about situations other photographers have had. I haven't taken stock photos of real people in their real job setting though. there are too many potential layers of conflict. I'm always worried about something happening. the problem is that you then have to build convincing sets for real job stock photos.....your sets are so realistic Sean, but I know you put a lot of resources into them sometimes. I'm thinking specifically of your pharmacy shots. they are so realistic. for someone like me, mid-range, it's always a question of cost:benefit....without being able to guarantee the series will sell, it's such a gamble to set up expensive shoots.
259
« on: November 28, 2011, 18:09 »
Im sure the place is hacked! not even a bunch of morons could screw up something like this. I have now lost complete interest in this place and its just a pain in the ass and a total insult against contributors, buyers, the whole industry in fact.
It is weird - I got an email this afternoon from the administration team stating my forum privileges have been locked - I have not posted a message on the istock forum for over three weeks! I checked and I can still post messages (potentially). Something is definitely not right, maybe their in meltdown. Happy days.
It'll likely take place at the next update. But why you'd be banned when you haven't posted for three weeks is a mystery.
Lobo finds me an intellectual challenge - he can't handle it. Either that or he's still smarting at my comment, "Every morning Lobo goes to work, a village somewhere misses their idiot".
you're flattering yourself. what exactly qualifies you as the expert you seem to have become around here?
260
« on: November 28, 2011, 12:35 »
Most photographers I know do a mix of assignment work and stock, i.e. they'll shoot something specific for a client but the client has to buy it via istock (because we are exclusive).
If you're shooting something specific for a client why would you then get them to buy it via iStock?
add me to the list of people asking why would you do this? why insert a middleman when you have a direct connection with a client? any assignment work I do, I do directly. I'm not interested in promoting iStock at the expense of my business. similarly, I don't upload anything to iStock that I've shot on assignment. why would clients pay for custom work that everyone else could then purchase? there's nothing in the exclusive ASA that requires you to do this.
261
« on: November 28, 2011, 01:21 »
... 
262
« on: November 27, 2011, 19:58 »
They certainly have "DRAMA" baked into the company DNA.
lol, this is quite true...well put
263
« on: November 27, 2011, 17:35 »
Assignment clients are the most difficult to deal with, though in general I feel like I have managed to keep a great rapport with clients by being as truthful as possible. Often they just don't understand what they want, nor do they understand the steps involved in our work. But the real twits are those who wonder why they can't just print the low res proofs you sent by email. Then they do it anyways and blame the photo. Those clients drive me insane.
I'm amazed how clueless people can be sometimes. I find the best clients are magazines. They're usually produced by established marketing firms with pro layout teams, and they understand what I need and what i will give them. Magazine work is my favourite photo assignment. Which is ironic, because as a writer I generally disliked writing for magazines.
264
« on: November 26, 2011, 23:26 »
no change after site maintenance. I don't know if the last dls bug was one of the fixes being addressed, but if it was, it didn't work.
265
« on: November 25, 2011, 14:46 »
since yesterday afternoon I cannot see my latest dls, no idea what my newest sales are. tried in safari on iPhone, in Firefox and explorer.....all stuck on November 1st
266
« on: November 25, 2011, 02:48 »
thanks Christian, sure makes me want that 40% though....
267
« on: November 25, 2011, 02:11 »
mine are worse today than before. can't see my last dls at all...but I guess I'm happy I have had a pretty good sales day despite US Thanksgiving....so I won't complain (too loudly)
268
« on: November 24, 2011, 16:50 »
How many here have experienced problems with new uploads and or drops in search engine placement for images with long term high RPI.
Have you also been experiencing issues with missing images, double images in your port or search engine bugs such as images not searchable by their keywords or combinations of keywords?
If so, what issues are you seeing, how frequent are they occurring and how long has this been going on.
In the end if you are experiencing these problems do you think these issues are causing you to miss out on sales?
this reminds me of a telemarketing survey....
269
« on: November 24, 2011, 13:35 »
<bangs head on table repeatedly>
your avatar is funny, even though it is a little creepy too. I don't think we can say that the sale of iStock is irrelevant. the details of the sale between Bruce and Getty may no longer be relevant (maybe that's what you meant Jasmin?). but the sale has completely shifted the iStock infrastructure. I wouldn't say in directions that are all bad. I think having a powerhouse corporation like Getty behind us has launched us into the stratosphere in terms of visibility. but the price for this is largely being footed by contributors. I'd say that's pretty relevant.
270
« on: November 23, 2011, 22:35 »
The quality of a business partner I work with can be tremendously influenced by whoever is in charge of the place. A highly successful company can be ruined in a few months by an incompetent manager. Or it can blossom with the right one. So I believe this thread, if it looks at the behaviour and experiences contributors have had with the different agencies is very valuable.
But to differentiate into "evil or good", that makes no sense to me at all. After all - are the photographers all good and never "evil"? Do they not do everything they can to maximize their profit?
Ill let you guys continue and watch from the sidelines. I have very limted experience with agencies outside of istock/getty.
don't watch from the sidelines. I like your posts. I agree with what you've said up ^. I was just being a smarta** about ww. but, I do find it fishy on the whole when an executive bounces from company to company. I think the president of SS (Thilo) was with a few, including theladders something or other before getting on board with SS. contributors seem to feel they have a relationship with Oringer, but the corp president has considerable decision-making power. in any case, the vilifying is pointless IMO.
271
« on: November 23, 2011, 21:55 »
Actually the fact that the President was at weigtwatchers for over 8 years, makes him a good candidate for leading a microstock site. Weightwatchers is based on thousands of small time, very local entrepreneurs who although they work at their own risk have the support of an international franchise behind them.
So if he was successful at growing the weight watchers business (was he?? - I have no idea?), he should have very good operational experience with an international freelancing sales team.
But this is just from looking at his CV on the internet. I have no idea if he has had any impact on the SS business.
The concept of "finding and growing the sales warrior diamonds" is something he should be familiar with.
not to digress too much, but doesn't an organization like weightwatchers only work because their program doesn't? they secure die-hard followers who believe they must remain members in order for the weight to stay off...when in fact the program is designed to have very limited success in order to keep members in programs over time? pretty slimy.... corporations are expected to make money. we live in a screwed up global economy where the only measure of success according to lenders is persistent growth and the projection of growth. consistent growth requires that suppliers and customers are those who get shafted first in order to keep those making money consistently making MORE money. all the microstock companies belong to the same club. differentiating between them, IMO, really trivializes the issues we face as contributors in the industry as a whole. there is no hero agency, nor is there a villain. the quests--for growth of individual contributor versus company profits-- seem diametrically opposed these days. marketing may be bringing in more sales on the whole, but the current model will ultimately make it more difficult to be successful as an individual contributor. at some point it means contributors will have to do something to protect our income. that movement will have to start from the top contributors and work its way down. if two or three of the major contributors were to make a drastic move, it would create a minor panic. if not a major one. the fact that they aren't making these types of drastic moves yet speaks to the real state of affairs, doesn't it?
272
« on: November 23, 2011, 20:06 »
Right. Remember the Bruce from IS? Times were right and ripe to sell. Oringer is a businessman, too.
Wrong. Livingstone bottled it and sold out way, way too early. Oringer is 10x the businessman that Livingstone was (and is quite possibly 100x wealthier too). Brucie-babe sold out for just $50M. I reckon you'd need to pony-up close to $1B before you could even begin discussions to buy SS/BigStock.
isn't the president of SS now some guy who used to work at weightwatchers? seems he's one of these leap frog execs, since Jon steeped away as president in 2010. I like that Jon Oringer is a photographer first. I don't know him, but I know his work fairly well (and like it) and think he seems like a successful, interesting person. make no mistake, he's a businessman and I think he's probably got a price. I don't see the point of vilifying entrepreneurs who sell their companies. How many of you still sell images on the 'evil' sites? just a little hypocritical, no? $ is $..... gostwyck, is Jon Oringer your little cousin or something? you sure like SS...it seems unlikely that you would evangelize anything this strongly
273
« on: November 22, 2011, 11:20 »
my RCs look fine today.
They may look fine, but that must be because you don't know what the number is supposed to be.
Several posts on iStock's forum backs up what I'm seeing: the current RC total is for Wed, 16 Nov -- and not even through the end of the day (i.e., about mid-day Wed).
what they've added up seems correct according to our estimations of where I should have been by that point. I'm more worried about royalties, which are not correct.
274
« on: November 22, 2011, 10:44 »
Congratulations Lisa.
So IS is going to make another famous retro-payment someday in a way that will hide even more what contributors get paid.
They act like thimbleriggers.
Joyze said they would send an e-mail for each sale showing the correction, so as long as you keep a list of what has sold over the last three days you should be able to tell if they are all paid up.
my RCs look fine today. royalties were low on the affected days though, so hopefully corrections are all accurately calculated too.
275
« on: November 21, 2011, 01:53 »
I feel that we are getting a preview of what's coming: flat 25% for exclusives, flat 15% for non exclusives. iStock/Getty is betting that we have more to loose than them.
to be honest, in my rumination over the RCs yesterday, I had a fleeting concern that this was the mistaken release of a soon-to-be-implemented new royalty level. take it or leave it. 25% exclusives, 15% indies. I don't want to be paranoid, so I'm going to operate on the assumption right now that it's an error. it looks like the system just set down to the defaults.....
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 54
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
