|
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 - Allsa
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17
276
« on: July 31, 2010, 20:30 »
Everything they've been doing at IS lately adds to my suspicion that Getty's ultimate goal is to destroy the microstock model. What I don't understand is, why aren't the exclusives leaving in droves?
277
« on: July 29, 2010, 21:00 »
Right now I'm opted out of iStock's partner program - because I'm opposed to the poor royalties and don't want my work devalued in that way. But now I'm wondering if maybe I should opt in my older, lower quality poor sellers on an individual basis. Still, I'm conflicted about the ethics of this, I don't want to contribute to the downfall of microstock just to make a few extra $$'s. Would it be wrong to treat Thinkstock as a bargain center type storefront for my 'clearance items'? Or is Thinkstock such an abomination that it would be unethical to participate in it at all?
278
« on: July 18, 2010, 14:18 »
is it finished? pretty weak for 800 pics! PP from IS is giving 6x more
I thought Thinkstock and iStock's PP were one and the same. When you opt into the PP program, what exactly are you opting into?
279
« on: July 10, 2010, 14:58 »
I am concerned, but planning and action is more productive than worrying.
But what plans? What actions? What can we, as individuals, do?
280
« on: July 10, 2010, 07:48 »
And if Getty does kill micro they had better replace it with something that has higher pricing and commissions, not lower.
They already have something with higher pricing and commissions...Getty Images. Look at the pool of photographers they have to choose from, ones that they have watched come up through the ranks at IS, that they can now shuffle over into the trad agency. The rest is collateral damage.
Yes but Getty seems to be in decline. IS is growing. But they're heavily promoting Thinkstock. And promoting it to buyers at Getty and IS !!??
Not sure what the strategy is here but if Thinkstock grows into a monster that drains Getty, IS, and other micros of buyers I don't think this is good for any of us.
It looks like Getty has been pouring massive amounts of money into promoting Thinkstock; I keep seeing Thinkstock ads everywhere online. Thinkstock seems to be as widely advertised as Netflix, and who hasn't heard of Netflix? If I were an iStock exclusive, I would be furious about this.
281
« on: July 09, 2010, 15:41 »
I keep wondering if Getty's ultimate, long term goal isn't to kill the microstock business model altogether, or at least limit it to mostly snapshots.
282
« on: June 09, 2010, 16:04 »
(clip) The other objection I have is that it confuses the story being featured. I'm thinking while reading the text that this model isn't "real". I wonder if this story is faked too. Maybe the intention was to deceive the reader as Bernie deceived his customers. If so, The New York Magazine was successful.
That's a good point. If the writer wants to appear credible, using fake photos doesn't seem the right way to go. It would have made way more sense to hire an illustrator to do sketches, similar to the sketches that artists in court do, to run with the story. That way, the focus is more on the story, not the fake images.
P.S. I was busy studying the photo illustration for lighting, props, etc. Didn't even bother reading the story.
Another option would be to use the photos as a basis for some digital paintings; that would be my choice - unless photo realism is required for the assignment.
283
« on: June 09, 2010, 08:20 »
There's a really interesting article on Bernie Madoff's life in prison in New York magazine, but the reason I'm posting about it here is because of the photos of 'Bernie in prison' that accompany the article. Naturally no photographer is going to be allowed to do a photo shoot of Madoff in prison, so this photographer used a model that resembles Madoff, then somehow they got access to a prison (maybe one not in use?) and shot a series of photos depicting Madoff sitting in a cell, sweeping floors, ect, ect. Here's a link: http://nymag.com/news/crimelaw/66468/?dbkI've wondered about doing this sort of thing; I do 3D, and I have a model that looks like Obama. But they'd have to be editorial, and after looking at many of the editorial photos in Dreamstime, and seeing that the vast majority of them get very few if any downloads; there's not much incentive to give it a try. But I did think it was an interesting approach to photo illustration, as well as fascinating article about a psychopath.
284
« on: June 09, 2010, 05:33 »
Any advice, or just accept that's the way it is?
Oldhand
My advice would be to not support TS at all. You are undermining SS, FT and DT, who all pay considerably more to contributors for sub sales, and your own future earnings (and those of others too) in the process. As a self-declared 'old hand' I'm surprised you can't see this.
+1
285
« on: May 30, 2010, 08:53 »
I've heard the Yuri story before, and there is no way any of us knows exactly what transpired, but I am finding this to be kind of unprofessional...
I have been having a heck of a time this morning with searchs and looking at peoples portfolios on DT. I enter search terms and come up with 0 results...I searched the word "man". That can't be right. And when I go to someone's profile page and click their portfolio button, sometimes it goes to their port, sometimes it says 0 images found. That's not right, either. It happens on my portfolio too sometimes. Sometimes it does go to my portfolio, but when I click to page 2, it says no images found.
Something is definitely wrong. That doesn't seem like it would be an issue on my end, so I have to presume the search engine at DT is hosed.
Everything at DT seems OK, I checked and didn't come across any problems. Maybe these search problems were just a temporary glitch.
286
« on: May 26, 2010, 11:49 »
Kinda soft everywhere, but definitely slowest on Istock.
Sales on IS the whole month have been like a trip back in time to 2007 or so (when I had about half the portfolio size).
This is exactly how iStock has been for me this month, I had to look back to 2007 before I saw comparable numbers. I'm relieved it's not just me; but I wonder what it means for the MicroStock industry as a whole?
287
« on: May 25, 2010, 13:36 »
You know I was looking at their portfolio, very creative, beautiful work, tons of views, but most had no downloads. Even the IOTW had no downloads (last I looked). I guess the arty stuff is great for generating interest in your portfolio, but if you want to make money on the images themselves, you have to go RM. Too bad, I enjoy doing the more creative stuff.
288
« on: May 23, 2010, 17:15 »
Awesome and inspiring! Thanks for sharing - this reminds me of an Uma Thurmon movie I saw several years ago (can't think of a title) but there was a group of people who shot a series of images for a calender the same way - painting the model to be part of the background. I'll bet they saw that movie, I wish I could remember the title.
290
« on: May 12, 2010, 17:52 »
Veer existed in their own right for quite a few years before Corbis came along and bought them...to suggest that they do not know what they are doing is profoundly ignorant.
They are brand new to Microstock, true? BTW, you could have made your point without the profoundly rude comment. It is the micros that are new, and have come along and undercut on pricing and greatly contributed to it being so tough to make a living shooting stock these days. Perhaps Veer are wanting to establish a viable microstock collection with out descending to the level of those sites that take all comers just for the numbers.
If that is true I have no problem with it. I asked how Veer's approach is different from other micros, since their rejection rate is much higher than even the strictest agencies, and I never received an answer to this question. I started out very enthusiastic about Veer's potential, so I applied and was accepted. With my first two batches most submissions were accepted. Encouraged, I uploaded more, and shocked to discover that at least 80% of those were rejected. The same type and quality, yet suddenly a mass rejection? I thought that perhaps I just hit a bad inspector, so I checked the forum to see if the problem was confined to just me. I discovered that mass rejections were a very common complaint, and some of the complainers were extremely successful, doing top quality work. I came to the perfectly reasonable conclusion that they didn't know what they were doing in regards to the microstock model. Just my opinion, and I have a right to express it, which I did. I have yet to hear anything that conflicts with that assumption.
291
« on: May 11, 2010, 13:53 »
Dash for Cash - nice gimmick, but where's the substance? Why haven't these questions (below) been answered?
Thanks for the info Ryan. This confirms what I had heard. I also understand that previously approved contributors would have to go through the initial approval process again too.
Unfortunately, with the cumbersome upload process there and the difficulty of getting images approved, it is not much of an enticement to go through that whole process all over again.
Have you improved your review process? Veer's rejection rate was by far higher than any other website I have ever contributed to. How do you explain that? How do Veer's content needs differ from those of other micro agencies?
...and have you streamlined the uploading process?
These are the questions I would have too ^^, before seriously considering uploading to VM again.
It's hard for me to comment not knowing your specific experience with us, but I will say that like most other microstock agencies, we value high quality, commercially relevant photography and illustration, and getting the best images on our site is always our first priority.
Thanks
This still doesn't explain why your rejection rate is far higher than any other micro I contribute to, and that includes iStock, the most rigorous, demanding micro in the business. Streamlining the upload process doesn't save us much time, when most submissions end up getting rejected anyway. Since Veer's rejection rate is far higher than all of the successful micros (this is borne out by complaints from many other contributors, not just me), your needs must differ substantially from the rest. Saying you want high quality, commercially relevant photography and illustration is a pretty generic statement, since all micros make the same claim. It doesn't tell me anything specific about why Veer's rejection rate is by far the highest in the business. This from a new micro with no proven track record! If you don't want certain types of content, you should state that clearly, so we don't waste time uploading imagery that Veer doesn't want in the first place. The only reason Veer has made it this far is because of the Corbis name, and now this new Dash for Cash program.These things can't keep you going forever, people will become disillusioned, as I have. Where are the downloads? We need something of substance! Please show us some respect and have a little consideration for the value of our time.
292
« on: May 11, 2010, 08:10 »
Dash for Cash - nice gimmick, but where's the substance? Why haven't these questions (below) been answered?
Thanks for the info Ryan. This confirms what I had heard. I also understand that previously approved contributors would have to go through the initial approval process again too.
Unfortunately, with the cumbersome upload process there and the difficulty of getting images approved, it is not much of an enticement to go through that whole process all over again.
Have you improved your review process? Veer's rejection rate was by far higher than any other website I have ever contributed to. How do you explain that? How do Veer's content needs differ from those of other micro agencies?
...and have you streamlined the uploading process?
These are the questions I would have too ^^, before seriously considering uploading to VM again.
293
« on: May 07, 2010, 15:18 »
I left early on because I decided that the mass rejections for an unproven site were simply unacceptable, leading me to conclude that the site was not worth a further investment of my time. Judging from the disappointing experiences of other contributors (as reported on this website), I learned that I had made the correct decision. Like Lisa, I'm leery of reopening my account and resuming uploading only to have the same experience repeated. Have you improved your review process? Veer's rejection rate was by far higher than any other website I have ever contributed to. How do you explain that? How do Veer's content needs differ from those of other micro agencies? I wish you the best of luck Aaron.
I had my accepted images removed from VM several months back in preparation for exclusivity elsewhere (that I eventually chickened out of  )
If I should decide to give it another go, can I have my accepted images reactivated, or do I have to start uploading from scratch?
Hi Lisa,
Thanks for the question. Recently we have a had a few contributors who chose to have their accounts deactivated instead of deleted- in that situation we would to simply 'reactivate' the portfolio and they can get started uploading images once again. In your case it does appear that your previously submitted images had been permanently removed, after you requested that we do so.
-a note to all- If you are a former contributor who had previously had a contributor account which you had removed or deactivated, please message me directly at [email protected] if you would like to begin submitting images once again. Even if it's not possible to reactivate any previously submitted images, I should be able to add the Contributor 'role' back to your account, saving you the trouble of having to re-register.
Thanks
294
« on: May 05, 2010, 13:08 »
I'm seeing Thinkstock being advertised all over the place online, they are really pushing that site! It's depressing to keep seeing the ads all over the place, and being reminded of what we lost. StockXpert was such a great site, and they replaced it with this travesty. It appears that Getty is spending tons of money to promote it. Greed ruins everything 
295
« on: May 02, 2010, 14:53 »
I closed my account shortly after joining because their extremely low acceptance rate (for a new, unproven site) was unacceptable. I have no regrets. There are some contributors who say they've had good luck with this site, but it was a waste of time for me.
296
« on: May 01, 2010, 14:45 »
IS 34%
FT 27%
DT 19%
SS 13%
BS 6%
Total earnings are down 2% from April 2009, the biggest drop was SS, I had 25% drop there compared to April '09.
297
« on: May 01, 2010, 12:43 »
Judging by my own portfolio, BigStock was slowly dying for awhile there, but March and April were both pretty good for this time of year. I'm hopeful about them making a comeback. BigStock is a good agency that always treated me fairly, and I'd hate to see them die.
298
« on: March 19, 2010, 18:27 »
The best thing we as individuals can do at this point is to refuse to participate in Thinkstock. If they have a small, poor quality collection, buyers will go elsewhere. Don't feed the monster.
299
« on: March 06, 2010, 15:42 »
You would have more replies if you posted this question in the Veer forum. I don't have any other info about how Veer is doing these days, I tried them at first and then closed my account soon after because of all the rejections.
300
« on: March 01, 2010, 10:12 »
I thought about doing that, but then I considered the fact that in addition to being one of my top sellers, it's also one of my best (in some cases the most popular images aren't anything above average quality-wise) and I think it reflects well on my whole portfolio. In other words, even if buyers see an image that isn't what they're looking for, if they are really impressed with that image, they might want take a look at the rest of your portfolio, just to see what else you've got. So your whole portfolio is stronger by association. With the huge flood of images the buyers have to look through, getting noticed is really important. Does that make sense? I'd do this. Count the total $ the image has earned in the past year(if it wasn't up for a year average it out) than multiply by 7 and you have your price.Why 7? Because I think 7-8 years is more than the average lifetime of an image( also I like the number). If the buyer doesn't want to pay, you haven't lost anything.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
