|
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 - Jo Ann Snover
2601
« on: July 25, 2015, 22:12 »
...Honestly, Scott isn't going to do anything positive for contributors. His job will be to enrich Adobe at contributors' expense. He is in all likelihood compensated based on how he impacts revenue and margins. We hurt both.
Why do people belive that everything must be a zero sum game?
Why do people belive that every transaction must have a winner and a loser?
...
When microstock started, large numbers of customers were people and organizations who had not previously paid for stock images & illustrations. It was too expensive and difficult to buy from Getty, Corbis, Jupiter Images, et al. When you can expand the size of the pie, it allows for all sorts of good things, but more recently, all we've seen from agencies has been more like a zero sum game - the least appealing example being the Dollar Photo Club. It's not that I believe that this is the way it must be, but when agencies just set about to steal market share from one another, like it or not, that's what it is. When the agency who grabs more market share pays contributors less, then it seems pretty clear it's a win for the agency and its shareholders and a loss for contributors. Getty and its Private Equity owners put together a whole pile of schemes which, in spite of the spin they tried to peddle to contributors, attempted to enrich the PE firm and who cares about anyone else. Hard to see that as anything but win/lose. Finding a new pool of customers - versus just stealing customers from another agency - is something we haven't seen in a while. Getty had a stab at it with the various schemes to license metadata to search engines and allow free embeds in non-commercial blogs but as far as I can tell those have gone nowhere. In spite of my frustrations with how Canva treats contributors, they appear to be an exception in that they're trying to bring design tools to people who previously weren't using them and give them web based software and micro-rights-managed licenses that are affordable. They may well expand the pool of buyers. None of this is about beliefs, just about observations of the last decade in microstock.
2602
« on: July 24, 2015, 12:48 »
There's a relatively small group of contributors with over 10K images. I'm guessing that they're earning enough elsewhere that getting paid $1,000 up front isn't any incentive at all to upload to an unproven site.
I'm guessing there are less than 20 members here with over 10K images to consider uploading.
You keep coming back here with more gimmicks. What's needed is some sort of marketing plan - how you plan to attract and keep buyers for the site. Also, past offers to pay a bonus for uploads were not an advance against future royalties but a flat payment. I understand that money now versus money later is worth more in real terms, but this isn't all that great a deal (even if you ignore the lock on content)
2603
« on: July 24, 2015, 12:40 »
You have a fairly narrow range of subjects - red rocks and norway stood out at a quick glance. The subjects are perhaps not in high demand - how much interest there is in a place as a convention destination, tourist spot or in some other way can determine sales.
Also, your keywording isn't helping you out. I checked a picture of Sicily that was first in your port sorted by downloads. I looked at the image and figured if I were looking for that I might type boat sicily bay or sailboat sicily coast. Your images don't show up in either because boat, bay and coast (or coastline) are not in your keywords. You have useless (iStock controlled vocabulary) terms like non-urban scene, which no one searches for.
2604
« on: July 24, 2015, 09:57 »
Congrats to Scott. Just curious. When he was at SS what did he do for contributors that this move to Adobe means good things for us? And I ask this because as a fresh IS non-exclusive I didnt keep track so I really have no idea.
It may sound like damning with faint praise, but given how agency attitudes towards contributors are these days, the fact that Scott came here and interacted with contributors is likely the reason he's treated as good news. He did try to sell the corporate line (he worked for the agency) but he also tried to address issues. His posts: http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=3744
2605
« on: July 24, 2015, 00:44 »
...Joanne, send Scott a message directly about joining up while he still has time to speak with content providers.
I had thought about it, but that really isn't fair to him. My guess is his hair will be on fire for a few months while he creates his new role with Adobe and if there are to be good things for contributors that come out of his hiring, better that he focuses on those. That would benefit lots of people over lots of years. I'm by no means the only one Fotolia targeted; I hope there will be some general policy to correct the errors of the previous regime.
2606
« on: July 23, 2015, 18:21 »
...I think he provides Adobe Stock with a lot of credibility among creators and I suspect that many image suppliers who have been taking a wait and see attitude with Adobe/Fotolia will be much more inclined to start contributing again...
He's certainly a very nice start. However I asked recently if I could contribute again (Fotolia wouldn't have me back after I left iStock exclusivity - I think I'm seen as trouble) and was told no. I was ready to give Adobe a shot, but they are clearly still Fotolia under the hood. Perhaps in a few months he'll have fully taken the reins and things will be different?
2607
« on: July 23, 2015, 12:14 »
That's a very interesting hire. Certainly Scott can help Adobe understand their competitive situation better than almost anyone else 
2608
« on: July 22, 2015, 18:31 »
So I'd been holding at 375 images since July 9th, but they zapped another batch some time in the last day or two - now it's 356 left.
I took a quick look through to see what had been removed and several are images that have sold repeatedly; there are also a lot of people pictures that have gone.
I haven't seen this promised newsletter with some explanation of what their new standards are - has anyone else received anything yet?
What's such a shame is that sales are going really well this month - the last several have seen increases each month. But if they keep removing things that clearly won't keep happening.
I can't decide if I'm more disappointed or more p*ssed off - what are they trying to tell contributors of photos? You just aren't important to Canva?
2609
« on: July 20, 2015, 15:10 »
I know it's frustrating dealing with the idiotic review system at SS, (and I'm not trying to invalidate your complaint in any way) but you could just change the color of the shoes in Photoshop and resubmit. If it's anything other than red, you'll be fine.
If the shot is more important than the shoes, just work around the challenged reviews if you want to get it for sale there.
2610
« on: July 17, 2015, 09:40 »
Just because a photo buyer uses Adobe software does not mean they'll find much/enough benefit in buying their stock images from Adobe. I know Adobe is hoping that integration will help them capture market share, but my guess is that what they have won't make a material difference to current image buyers.
If you have assets of multiple types from multiple sources, you probably have some sort of asset management and workflow now. Adobe's is currently somewhat limited, especially to types of media they manage. Why switch?
No idea where they got that 55% will switch number from - if anyone finds the survey details, it'd be interesting to read.
2611
« on: July 17, 2015, 09:15 »
They have up and down votes for posts, and what are warning points?
They seem to want to go social - friends, friends' comments on your profile, show who your friends are....
2612
« on: July 15, 2015, 14:12 »
...I never really followed the SS forums, i don't know if it was the layout that was confusing or what was going on wasn't that exciting,...
I used to participate a very long time ago, but they were largely unmoderated and the place was chaotic. It was very hard to avoid the professional time wasters - I even once had someone ask me to edit his picture for him (after I'd given some advice on editing to someone else)! To me, the wild west of the SS forums illustrated the importance of gentle moderation (Rob Sylvan is still my hero in that department) if you want to have a useful community. The issues, IMO, had to do with the absence of the right staff, not anything to do with the forum software.
2613
« on: July 14, 2015, 14:34 »
... why anyone would pay $49 for a vector when they can get the same image much cheaper on other sites. ...
Other sites don't let the customer download the image, use it, take up to 3 months to report that they used it and then up to 45 days to pay after that. Images should cost a ton more at Alamy given the payment leeway they offer.
2614
« on: July 13, 2015, 23:57 »
Thank you, Mantis.
I wonder how the customers find what they're looking for - does the system translate and correct also their search words into IStock language??
This system is so clumsy and medieval, I don't know if I should be in awe or scream of frustration.
My vote is for scream of frustration - and medieval is about right. What used to happen (and I haven't checked this lately to see if it's still true) is that if you left a term that wasn't in the CV (Controlled Vocabulary, i.e. Getty's "language") it would be found in searches only if the buyer put the term in quotes. There are a number of terms it knows as synonyms for CV terms and will find things if the user doesn't type the exact term (watch the drop down to see it look things up) The problem the CV was trying to solve, way back when, was (a) translation and (b) distinguishing meanings (such as turret meaning a gun part or a round extension to a castle). What it is hopeless at is keeping up with fast changing vocabulary and the vast breadth of subjects now in stock image collections. Google has left it in the dust
2615
« on: July 13, 2015, 15:46 »
There's no way to be sure about predictions, but based on what you posted, I'd say you're targeting areas of stock that are already well supplied and your offerings are very similar to what's already out there. I don't see how this will work well for you long term. As an example, if I search for success failure sign on Shutterstock there are over 4,300 results, so your image is fine, but not really any different from the big stack of others.
2616
« on: July 09, 2015, 21:28 »
What I've done is to cut out my own images and save them as PNG files. When submitted, these seem to go straight through and begin to sell shortly thereafter. Never had one rejected or deleted.
That's what I've done too. So far, it's been very successful!
I had done that as well - submitted PNGs of isolations - and until today I'd have agreed that this was a good approach. However two of my previously accepted PNGs were rejected after-the-fact today, so even PNGs aren't immune from getting zapped.
2617
« on: July 09, 2015, 17:43 »
Now they've gone on a wholesale culling - I had 422 images on sale this morning and I have 375 this afternoon.
It's so depressing
2618
« on: July 09, 2015, 13:05 »
In the beginning they accepted small images, but now the minimum is 4 mp. That might be another reason for deletions....
Not for me - current camera is 21 MP and previous one was 8MP This morning I went to check sales and got a 404 error on one that sold today - July 9th. I went digging through my portfolio and it's this image - sells everywhere, including lots of times on Canva. In other words I know it's not a quality problem and if you search for white candle flame on Shutterstock, the image is on the first page (out of 30,000+ images), so it's not LCV.  I've written to support to ask for some sort of explanation - we need to understand what they want and don't. I'll post if I get anything back. Oh, and my portfolio dropped another 2 images (to 422) since yesterday... Edited to add: support says "We'll be providing some clarification on this in our next newsletter."
2619
« on: July 08, 2015, 22:48 »
Yes, Lobo will be gone. New forum admin: Peebert.
Ha! Pete's a very, very funny guy, but was downright brutal as a moderator - sort of the polar opposite of Rob Sylvan
2620
« on: July 08, 2015, 18:11 »
I saw this a couple days ago. I no longer have an account at iStock, but would sometimes peek back at the forums. As of two days ago, I could no longer see the forums.
If you look here, you should be able to see the "archive" forums - at least until the end of July http://www.istockphoto.com/forums_archive.php
2621
« on: July 08, 2015, 18:05 »
My port on Canva was edited from 1200 to 275 and it hurt my sales. So I cant report on any trends, I was going very well but my sales have dropped since the new policy kicked in.
Policy change? Do they have any description of what and why are they deleting?
No details about the "what" that I've seen. Somewhere in MSG Lee (when he was still here) said they had upped their standards and were applying those changed standards to previously accepted content. He acknowledged that one of the things no longer allowed were images with text. He didn't offer any other specifics. A number of us have asked. I think they need a contributor newsletter with information about things of this sort. They have said they're focusing on buyers and not on contributor tools or communication until some unspecified later date.
2622
« on: July 08, 2015, 18:00 »
I am still an iStock contributor and didn't get this e-mail. I was banned from the iStock forums years ago by Lobo, so perhaps banned contributors don't get accounts in the new community web site?
If it's anything like the Getty forums introduced back when I was still exclusive, it was so sterile (and largely useless) that the term community really didn't apply. I'm not talking about courtesy, but a wish to keep it a platform for issuing press-release like information from the corporate end with no discussion (clarifying questions were OK as long as there was no negativity squirreled away).
I seem to recall Sean Locke making a point - politely, but about something they didn't want to discuss - and he was scolded about his attitude. It was all very "nanny state".
2623
« on: July 08, 2015, 11:58 »
I almost never look at the sales stats on CanStock any more as things are so slow, but I looked today and noticed that there have been some "Distribution Regular" sales for tiny amounts.
These used to be the Fotosearch sales at decent royalties, even though they weren't as frequent. Back in January, for example, there was a Distribution Regular medium sale with a $9.80 royalty.
At the end of June, there was another one of those, same size, but the royalty was 71 cents! That's less than the 75 cents a medium sale makes if sold with credits at CanStock's site.
Did something change with Fotosearch prices - or with our royalties on those sales?
I had decided to live with CanStock's low royalties because of the intermittent high value sales from Fotosearch, but if those are actually going to be lower than CanStock itself, the deal there is looking pretty unappealing to me.
2624
« on: July 08, 2015, 11:43 »
...I wonder, you who have large portfolios, dont you see the same trend?
Not exactly. I have 1879 images on SS and 424 on Canva (at least today; they keep deleting images here and there). Canva sales are growing - at this point every month is a BME, and that's great, but it's much easier to do when you're new than when you have a large sales volume. Even so, SS in June 2015 was up (in $$) 28% over June 2014. I can't compare with Canva as I had 3 sales in June 2014 (I just started uploading then). But if I look at the $$, SS sales were just about 15 times Canva sales, so they aren't even in the same ballpark at the moment. If you adjust for the difference in portfolio size (just numerically), SS is still about 3.5 times Canva in money terms. I'm happy to see someone trying something new - Canva is something new IMO - and even happier to see it grow. But for the moment, they are still small in overall income, growth notwithstanding
2625
« on: July 07, 2015, 14:50 »
...Shutterstock.com allows print on demand with an EL. Bigstock pays you for each sale by the POD site, SS gives you a one time EL. No opt out on either site as far as I know.
Bigstock used to have an opt out for POD - but I can't check as I'm no longer a contributor. Shutterstock does let you opt out of ELs if you want (not specifically for PODs, and not image by image, but it is an opt out). You can't make Getty's terrible behavior any less terrible by pointing out flaws in other agencies, especially when the flaws either aren't comparable or (in the case of Bigstock) the agency is for all intents and purposes history. It is true that all the agencies have made anti-contributor moves, but Getty is in a league of its own - having started shafting contributors before microstock was even a thing, and having extended their reach wider (they pulled similar crap on PumpAudio contributors after they purchased them). It's a lawyerly game to suggest that all flaws are equivalent and thus the agencies are really no different from one another. Shutterstock has problems from a contributor point of view, but bringing them up every time there's a discussion of Getty's cr*p is just misleading.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
