|
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 - tickstock
2776
« on: August 03, 2013, 09:27 »
]
2777
« on: August 01, 2013, 18:47 »
]
2778
« on: August 01, 2013, 18:33 »
]
2779
« on: August 01, 2013, 17:50 »
]
2780
« on: August 01, 2013, 16:41 »
]
2781
« on: August 01, 2013, 16:00 »
]
2782
« on: August 01, 2013, 15:48 »
]
2783
« on: August 01, 2013, 15:28 »
]
2784
« on: August 01, 2013, 15:23 »
]
2785
« on: August 01, 2013, 14:57 »
]
2786
« on: August 01, 2013, 14:47 »
]
2787
« on: August 01, 2013, 13:23 »
]
2788
« on: August 01, 2013, 13:03 »
'
2789
« on: August 01, 2013, 12:59 »
]
2790
« on: August 01, 2013, 12:30 »
'
2791
« on: August 01, 2013, 11:57 »
'
2792
« on: August 01, 2013, 11:53 »
'
2793
« on: July 31, 2013, 21:18 »
'
2794
« on: July 31, 2013, 18:03 »
There have been other reports of indies having GI sales.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355278&page=1
Good luck getting a CR person who clicks the right auto-response button.
In that link he says they show up as partner program sales in green and the details say from Getty Images. GI sales show up purple and Connect show up as black.
But green represents the PP, and his GI sale was 12c, but his PP rate is 28c.
Maybe (idle speculation) Getty has just got into another nanopaying deal without telling TPTB at iS.
I'm saying it wasn't a GI sale, it was a Partner Program sale from Getty Images. At least that's how it was listed. GI sales are a different thing, they are from mirrored content on Getty Images. Just trying to keep things clear, it gets confusing if you call things by the wrong name. Pete may actually have GI sales which would be a different issue.
2795
« on: July 31, 2013, 17:37 »
There have been other reports of indies having GI sales.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355278&page=1
Good luck getting a CR person who clicks the right auto-response button.
In that link he says they show up as partner program sales in green and the details say from Getty Images. GI sales show up purple and Connect show up as black.
2796
« on: July 31, 2013, 17:10 »
What are all the 24 cent sales I'm getting for the last two months? I assumed, some kind of low cost subs? I can't even figure out how to see what's being licensed. Just shows up a month later as GI.
What next for IS? Their own subscription plan perhaps?
They have one, but it's not low enough priced to compete with SS, which is why Getty took over TS and Photos.com and sent most iS files there.
If they went to low cost subs, that would probably be the absolute last straw for many.
You are getting GI sales? Do they show up purple on the graph?
2797
« on: July 31, 2013, 16:58 »
'
2798
« on: July 31, 2013, 16:55 »
Isn't it enough to say that Yuri thought he would be better off with Getty and Getty thought they would be better off with Yuri? They worked out a deal that was beneficial to both parties and that's it. About the analysis, I think Istock only lost only a few thousand images during the D day thing. A lot of those images were ones that weren't selling anyways so they probably overall had little value. The exclusives that left have pretty much all kept their images with Istock. Sean was a separate issue. I think these changes to add a lot of files to the Partner Program have been in the works for a long time and had nothing to do with D-day. In one week they replaced more than all the files that were taken down.
2799
« on: July 31, 2013, 15:16 »
This seems to be common idea for some people on this site. The only way someone could disagree with you is if they were paid, a shill of some kind, a village idiot, a troll, (I can't even write half the things gostwyck called me, I'll get banned  ),etc... I think this is the biggest reason most professional and serious contributors don't join in the discussions. A few naive and insulting people (mostly the new guys) ruin it for everyone. I think you'll find that if you listen someone here will have some helpful advice for you but I guess that's not what you came here for is it?
curious that you saying so when you defend iStock like there isn't other agency in this industry, whatever they do you seem to find always the positive side, so why can't other enjoy SS?
Looks like you either didn't read what I wrote or you are trying to insult me even when I'm agreeing with you. I don't think I said not to enjoy Shutterstock, what I said was he shouldn't be calling people names and saying they work for the company (Shutterstock) because he doesn't like what they have to say. I also don't call people trolls, or shills, or insulting names because they like Shutterstock. I think it's wrong to call people names just because they disagree with you, I have no problem arguing or debating though.
2800
« on: July 31, 2013, 14:02 »
This seems to be common idea for some people on this site. The only way someone could disagree with you is if they were paid, a shill of some kind, a village idiot, a troll, (I can't even write half the things gostwyck called me, I'll get banned ),etc... I think this is the biggest reason most professional and serious contributors don't join in the discussions. A few naive and insulting people (mostly the new guys) ruin it for everyone. I think you'll find that if you listen someone here will have some helpful advice for you but I guess that's not what you came here for is it?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
