|
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 - Risamay
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13
251
« on: December 09, 2010, 13:17 »
I see that the email which was sent out to the 'chosen sample' had to be replied to within a week. Are they so lacking in imagination that they can't foresee people being away from the internet for a week or more? (e.g. travelling, in hospital, too busy...)
That's just bonkers. I am *so* glad I never got tangled up in the Getty offering to iStockers. Based on the experience of others from the outset, it seemed a senseless headache.
252
« on: December 08, 2010, 23:59 »
JRRD categorised the recipients of the last email thusly: "Not for people who truely worked hard and made sure to succeed at Getty Images."
Nice.
253
« on: December 08, 2010, 22:51 »
SNP... Please give up on this already. Every post you write just makes it worse.
...you have what, 100 files? thanks for the advice.... 
Translation: "I upload my butt off. [And you don't.] I work at producing better content everyday. [And you don't.] I'm serious about my business. [And you're not.]"
254
« on: December 08, 2010, 19:53 »
I think Stacey's "seriously" may refer to people who are spending full time hours creating a lot of usable stock, spending money on models and such, as opposed to other peoples' "seriously" which may mean a more part time approach, but no less serious about trying to create content the best they can, in their means and trying to follow the rules.
Well, if that's what was meant then that's what should have been said. For a professional writer, Stacey's posts are too easily and too often misunderstood or misconstrued. Say what you mean and mean what you say, I always say. ^ it was meant in that vein. but it quickly was spun into something else. secondly, I do think there's seriously part-time Sean. there are people doing this part-time working full-time hours who have met their targets. in fact a contributor we both know was working full-time until a few months ago on top of being one of iStock's top sellers. anyways...and for the record, as for being haughty....I'm very open about my own non-successes. like Agency...I'm all but unwanted in there and I don't have much Vetta either. I'm not at all holding myself up as an example, except to say that it's not impossible to reach the RC targets, even if you're not a major contributor. and I'm certainly not. never said I was nor do I think of myself as one.
It was spun into something else because that's how it came off to more than one person. In your reply to me you still sounded the same as my initial read (see my reply previous to this comment). Why is it that you need Sean to clarify what you mean? And even if what Sean thinks you meant is what you indeed intended, I still take issue. One can be serious about the work they produce for stock and have only an hour to work on a project or shoot vs. many hours plural. It's about approaching your work professionally and passionately within the time allowed by your schedule. Some of us are part-time, some of us are full-time, some of us have barely any time at all for photography. And yet, we can all be serious, passionate, and professional about our craft and the work we produce. Your comment makes it sound like "seriousness" is a factor of how much work one produces, how regularly one produces work, and/or how much time one spends producing work. This is just pure BS.
255
« on: December 08, 2010, 19:43 »
I think my comments about the RC targets are in the least worthy of discussion, even if you disagree. I know that discussion is certainly happening around many iStock round tables in my own region anyways, so why it causes you SUCH offense is beyond me. I think it's just that it comes from me.
we're all talking very openly in my iStock circle about why we are, or aren't making targets. why we are or aren't making Agency. why we have or don't have files in Vetta. I think it's a reasonable discussion to work out why RC targets aren't being met. anyways, as I said earlier, I hope for the sake of fairness that the levels are adjusted to reflect more attainable goals. or bell curved as Sue has been saying. no one is arguing about that. but some of the people suggesting favoritism/conspiracy/Getty greed/iStock greed/iStock intentionally screwing us....well some of those people (and in this case I'm NOT referring to Jo Ann) are people who have barely produced uploads over many years. why exactly is that taboo to discuss?
As usual, whether intentionally or otherwise, you miss the point. I took offense to that one comment, as did others. What offended me about your comment is no different from what/why others took offense. Had someone else made the same comment, I would have been equally put off. The people who are making those suggestions are a mixed bag of Black Diamonds on down. So why you choose to highlight those of us making such comments who "have barely produced uploads over many years" is ... odd. Is the connection tied to your work ethic comment and being "serious about your business" (insinuating that others of us are not serious or as serious)? What exactly is your point here if it's not that those producing less or with less regularity are somehow not as serious about the/ir business? It's not that this subject matter is taboo, it's that it's nonsense. Just because someone doesn't upload a glut of files regularly does not mean that s/he is any less serious about the/ir business than you. To suggest or assume as much comes off as arrogant, haughty, offensive. I'd suggest you go back and reread all the comments in response to yours. I think folks have done a good and clear job of highlighting why/what is offensive/incorrect.
256
« on: December 08, 2010, 19:06 »
From SNP: I guess it depends on how you look at. I upload my butt off. I work at producing better content everyday. I'm serious about my business. I guess that comment will ruffle feathers, but it's not meant to. my point is that contributors who mean to produce and improve and supply will reach their targets. if contributors on the whole don't meet targets, or just miss them....it seems they'll revisit the targets to the benefit of contributors.
I don't appreciate the comment about "being serious about your business" either. Just because a person isn't an uploading factory doesn't mean they aren't serious about their business. The statement and the whole situation reminds me of that of a wife-abuser. He beats the crap out of her then tells her it's her fault because she shouldn't have said or done something. Getty/IS takes away our commissions, changes the goalposts, "borrows" EL money, breaks the search engine, breaks the reporting of sales, and then some people have the gall to say it's our fault because we didn't work hard enough or we're not good businesspeople.
Yeah, I took offense to that haughty bit as well.
I'm sorry this offended you. it wasn't meant to be haughty. it's just realistic. anyways, it seems the reality isn't what you want. you want to gripe and you clearly just want to be pissed off. it's funny Marisa, when I first started on iStock, I read your blog regularly. I really love your photography and have always respected you, even when we've disagreed. guess that doesn't go both ways. anyways.
It's just "realistic"? That those of us who don't work the way that you do aren't serious about our/the business (did you even read cclapper's response to you, as quoted above, or any of the responses to your comment, for that matter)? How or why it seems to you that reality isn't what I want, that I only want to gripe and - clearly, even - just want to be pissed off is beyond me. You know what really pisses me off? You. You say some really off the wall, haughty, and generally offensive stuff and - apparently - you don't understand how/why you come off as such. I've tried, as have many others, to help you understand, but - clearly - we've/I've failed.
257
« on: December 08, 2010, 13:52 »
and yes, OF COURSE your sales numbers have to move up with your portfolio growth. that's stating the obvious.
I'm sorry, but this is just untrue. By any of the standards you have laid out I should be keeping my 20% royalty rate at Istock. I upload an average of 100 images per month, I have a portfolio over 6k high-production-value shots, I am one of only a handful of black diamonds (only a couple of us are non-exclusive), and yet in spite of growing my portfolio by over 1100 in 2010, my sales at Istockphoto have dropped 16% in the past year.
So no matter how hard you work, how much you grow your portfolio, how high quality your work is, how long you have been on the site, etc., Istock is still quite willing to screw you over. This new system is rigged. They control the best match, so they control how well you sell, and can turn sales off or on certain groups of contributors like a faucet. This is not a meritocracy anymore. It's not even a lottery. It's a rigged game of chance.
I'm mystified that despite these plain and unsavory facts, people still think otherwise.
258
« on: December 08, 2010, 13:48 »
95% of the images that are produced are no better or worse than a dozen others of identical subjects that are already in the collection and all the frenzied image production activity is doing is allowing submitters to jostle with each other for search engine position.
Istock's business would probably be better and more sustainable with 10,000 absolutely superb files entering the collection each month and no dross than it is with the avalanche it has at the moment that sometimes buries the occasional gem so deep, so fast that it vanishes forever.
But that's the nature of microstock, so what you gonna do? I hope for gods sake it doesn't need explanation why the micro model outlaws uniqeness and originality... you never know tho: I do see dumbos in site's forums going around giving advice to newcomers like "be original and unique" over and over again, while one thread away someone asking about 'how to get more sales' is told that pictures have to be as generic as possible to get a lot of dls. Are people really that stupid that they don't se the oximoron there?? Unbeleivable. : > It's not hard to see how that makes this unsustainable for contributors on a longer term. And for the 100th time: microstock's death is the inspection / acceptance system. There's nothing else they can do with clueless, art-uneducated 'inspectors' than set up a technical quality barrier and nothing else.
You misquoted. That was BaldricksTrousers. Not me.
259
« on: December 08, 2010, 13:13 »
@jamirae and shadysue
I was just about to 'bingo' that myself. So... err... double-bingo!
Make it a triple 
260
« on: December 08, 2010, 13:05 »
From SNP: I guess it depends on how you look at. I upload my butt off. I work at producing better content everyday. I'm serious about my business. I guess that comment will ruffle feathers, but it's not meant to. my point is that contributors who mean to produce and improve and supply will reach their targets. if contributors on the whole don't meet targets, or just miss them....it seems they'll revisit the targets to the benefit of contributors.
I don't appreciate the comment about "being serious about your business" either. Just because a person isn't an uploading factory doesn't mean they aren't serious about their business. The statement and the whole situation reminds me of that of a wife-abuser. He beats the crap out of her then tells her it's her fault because she shouldn't have said or done something. Getty/IS takes away our commissions, changes the goalposts, "borrows" EL money, breaks the search engine, breaks the reporting of sales, and then some people have the gall to say it's our fault because we didn't work hard enough or we're not good businesspeople.
Yeah, I took offense to that haughty bit as well.
261
« on: December 08, 2010, 13:03 »
Seinfeld here. 
Seinfeld here, too
262
« on: December 08, 2010, 13:00 »
Jo Ann - I say this with respect, because I know you know the business. I would not highlight you as an example, but since you did in response to my post, I'd say you are precisely the type of diamond they want producing more. in close to 7 years, you have just 2,500 files. that's less than 40 uploaded per month over 6 years...to be conservative since you're not quite at 7 years. that is simply not enough to maintain sales or growth. in any business that growth per year would not be adequate in terms of supporting further growth.
Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. Ten superb files a week are worth more than 1,000 average ones.
95% of the images that are produced are no better or worse than a dozen others of identical subjects that are already in the collection and all the frenzied image production activity is doing is allowing submitters to jostle with each other for search engine position.
Istock's business would probably be better and more sustainable with 10,000 absolutely superb files entering the collection each month and no dross than it is with the avalanche it has at the moment that sometimes buries the occasional gem so deep, so fast that it vanishes forever.
Thank you for stating the obvious. Sad that it needs to be stated at all, but bravo for trying to help those who just don't seem to get it.
263
« on: December 08, 2010, 00:57 »
They don't need to make next year's targets higher than the current ones, because the continual dilution of sales will gradually reduce the number of people achieving these levels over time.
True. It's like the old "bad guy - good guy" interrogation technique, except that they are both the same person.
LOL. Also true! I don't really expect them to fiddle getting their chums to a higher level since the owners would be outraged (it would cost them money). They will have to stick to the time-honoured method of approving each other's photos when they deserve to be rejected or promoting each other's pictures into high-priced collections, both of which involve subjective judgements that are hard to question and only need collusion between a couple of old pals, rather than half the HQ staff.
And again. Though I don't have hard evidence, I've seen many a club photo that should have been rejected or that has no place in one or the other high-priced collection, and yet ... there they are. So I suspect that this is only too true, too. And to that I say boo!
264
« on: December 08, 2010, 00:52 »
I guess it depends on how you look at. I upload my butt off. I work at producing better content everyday. I'm serious about my business. I guess that comment will ruffle feathers, but it's not meant to...
I don't have as large a portfolio as you do, but I work hard at producing high quality work. I became exclusive with a set of royalty schedules in place that made financial sense. Within weeks of making the 40% royalty rate I've been working towards I lose it because they've changed the rules.
I worked my effing butt off, made it, and had it taken away. I'm pi@#ed, demotivated and deeply, deeply distrustful of just about anything that HQ says.
It was last December I was overjoyed that they grandfathered the next cannister level only to have them play weasel word games with that promise. They did keep the canister level, but they uncoupled the royalty rate that had always been tied to it (and which they knew no one would ever think would be uncoupled when contributors parsed the sentence promising grandfathering). The joy then makes the anger now even more profound.
The fact that there's some utter hogwash about earning back our trust in the September announcements and then KT goes into hiding around IS just pours fuel on the fire. Yes, he'd get yelled at if he came to the forums, but he just chickened out and abandoned contributors to lick their wounds.
We have recent evidence that just because they say something doesn't mean it'll still be true a short time later. That's not being conspiratorial, it's just being sentient given all the data in front of us.
The whole situation is just so ugly and grasping and greedy. And to think that when they said they were given the target of growing the business by 50% this year, I naively thought they'd actually grow the business, vs. grow their profits by squeezing contributors.
So I really don't appreciate comments about how you work your butt off and it'll all be all right. I did, and it isn't.
Bravo, Jo Ann. Well said.
265
« on: December 07, 2010, 22:48 »
my point is that contributors who mean to produce and improve and supply will reach their targets.
There is no guarantee of that. By design. Which is part and parcel why so many are unhappy with the new system.
267
« on: December 07, 2010, 13:39 »
In any case, they have already announced that some people who get near the target but are a bit short will be grandfathered into the next level and your payment percentage will be secret henceforth unless you (or Wikileaks) release it, so if the company is willing to let them favour their friends they can grandfather them all into any level they like.
So the targets aren't targets at all and being tipped into the next level with a few hundred extra credits will simply do what grandfathering might have done anyway.
With all due respect Mr. Trousers, where/when was this announcement made? I know you to pull only sound, reliable info from your trousers, so I give you the benefit of the doubt. Though I do hope you're mistaken about this tidbit.
268
« on: December 03, 2010, 13:53 »
@ Stacey ~
While you are of course, entitled to your opinion, even if clearly wrong (in it being a conflict of interest) consider this.
Contributors have been shafted and their complaints ignored. There were threads which ran to several thousands into which there was no input from TPTB. In fact, if it weren't for the recent thread about Franky de Meyer, I might have suspected that most of the admins and inspectors had resigned. Buyers, even if also contributors, should expect a little more respect, and I have to say that if I were the OP, I'd demand a refund for my money and take it elsewhere. And as an exclusive, that could hurt me as much as it would hurt you. It would hurt Lobo not one iota, as he isn't a contributor, unless he also has another account (would that be a conflict of interest?).
Well said, Sue. So, Stacy - er ... SNP. What does the moniker of the moment stand for, or should I hazard a guess?
269
« on: October 26, 2010, 13:22 »
What I care about a lot is (a) being told one thing when what happens clearly contradicts it and (b) one set of rules for a special group that bypasses those rules the rest of us have to abide by.
+1 And - btw - bravo what you said on that now dead thread about "the contest" ... I was in the process of quoting you and posting a reply when Lobo hammered it.
270
« on: October 01, 2010, 17:46 »
Really?
Really. it seems to be taking place in the exclusive forum mostly, but that's fine. I think eventually those who are really being screwed will see it for what it is and those who are in the "clique" will just get bigger pom-poms so they can hide behind those without seeing how their fellow contributors are being screwed.
It's the right place to contain it. Especially right now. And I agree with everything else you've stated, also.
271
« on: October 01, 2010, 16:07 »
Well thank heavens for MSG.
I did drop my membership here briefly after I became exclusive, but decided that wasn't a sane way to approach things and signed back up again.
In the future, it may be that the main forum benefit is for contributors to compare notes and discuss amongst themselves. Once, I'd have said that it mattered to be part of the iStock forums as they gave contributors a way to discuss things with TPTB. At this point I don't think they're listening - except for the clubby little love fests among the inner circle in the exclusive forums.
The only other thing this site doesn't have that IS does is a Request Forum - a place buyers can come and ask for images they need. That's a service both for buyers and contributors (a couple of times I've shot things for people and found it filled a useful niche in my portfolio.
Other than caspixel, do we have enough buyers here to get this sort of thing going?
Yes. Thank heavens for MSG! As truly late to this party, I'm glad to finally be here. OMG. So glad someone brought up the clubfest going down over yonder. Pom-poms and all (and the very words used therein - not mine!) ... it's ... difficult to stomach if you've just eaten and hope to keep a meal down. To say the least. And I too wonder how many buyers participate here. That would be good to know, to get initiatives like the one you suggest off the ground
272
« on: September 30, 2010, 15:26 »
So, they sent me a coupon for 15% off any bundle of 50 credits or more. I just laughed. Any takers?q
We got one here at my office, too. Suffice it to say my boss isn't interested. With no input from me, even.
Look what I found.
Oh my ... Disturbing image. And funny, too. If only because it is such an accurate picture of the shafting.
273
« on: September 29, 2010, 18:10 »
It's hard to see how jumbling up similar-looking cheap and expensive products with only tiny, ambiguous symbols to differentiate between them is going to be anything but a failure.
+1 If I were a buyer, I wouldn't want to waste precious time on IS manually sorting through my search results for prices that fit my budge when sort by price point should be an automatic, built-in search feature. And if I were a new buyer, finding Vetta or Agency files first, before seeing or understanding how to find more reasonably priced images might scare or turn me off IS, right off the bat. And if I were a legacy IS buyer, I might still shop there, but I'd certainly start augmenting my searches and sourcing material with other agencies whose prices are either a) more affordable or, b) easier to immediately distinguish.
274
« on: September 29, 2010, 13:45 »
[snip]
Yet another burka then ... I'm no hawk eye, but they're just so easy to spot! & then ... Or, so then, what's the point of changing one's name? Call me simple, but I just don't get it.
275
« on: September 29, 2010, 11:32 »
GREAT points. Cas is right. They should have hired you as a consultant. They'd be untouchable in the market and it would be a veritable IS lovefest at the contributor level.
And having caught everybody who was anybody in the iStock exclusive net .... they would have cut the commission rates, because in the absence of competition why would they need to pay so much?
That's a little detail that gets overlooked: it was the existence of competition that let to "exclusivity" being invented in the first place, and props up the commission rates to this day.
Eh, dammit Trousers. You are absolutely right, too. How conveniently I/we forget the value of competition in this, or any, market.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
