|
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 - gostwyck
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 210
326
« on: December 04, 2013, 12:33 »
1 million potential new customers. A new type of media that has a billion subscribers. Ads that might be seen by millions, or hundreds of millions, of readers. And we enter this new market at 35 cents - and zero cents per click - without the slightest idea what the agency is getting - and no possibility of an increase, ever, no matter how big Facebook advertising turns out to be.
In what sense do you see this as a good deal?
Shutterstock obviously see this as good business as they negotiated it with FB. According to them we get our 'standard' rate on 'SOD & Other' downloads. I'd therefore assume that FB are paying about $1 per download although the advertiser pays nothing (directly) for the use of the image. You don't have to agree with SS. Being a contributor to SS is not compulsory. Our learned friend Mr Locke chooses not to for example. Personally I've done well from doing business with SS (over 9 years now) and I'm happy to accept their judgement on this deal.
327
« on: December 02, 2013, 07:36 »
The surprisingly high PP sales in October completely changed my expectations of that month from a 3% drop to what turned out to be an increase of 8% (compared to Oct 2012).
It therefore feels a bit early to be definitive about November. However, unless the PP for Nov are off the scale, then last month is looking very bad for me. SS, IS & FT were all well down whilst DT and BigStock were the same. Even if the PP for Nov is similar to Oct then I will still be about 8% down compared to Nov 2012.
As I mentioned in a previous post I find it difficult to believe that the massive increase in PP sales over the last couple of months is all 'new money' into the industry. I wonder if the recent success of the PP will eventually transpire to be at the cost of sales elsewhere?
328
« on: December 01, 2013, 20:04 »
Is there any mention of his passing on the iStock forums? I looked in the illustration forum and some others but didn't find it.
I'm utterly staggered by this. Mark was a highly prominent and respected member of IS for 13 years, sold nearly 300K licenses, held the position of Inspector (effectively as an 'employee') and undoubtedly made well over $1M for Istockphoto. They will probably make several $M more from the legacy of his portfolio over the years to come too. Yet apparently they don't even publically acknowledge his passing? Really?Even at my golf club they make an announcement and lower the flag to half-mast for a couple of days when a member passes, even though they may have left the club several years earlier (obviously sometimes necessitated through ill-health). Disgraceful.
329
« on: November 27, 2013, 17:24 »
Workin'
Good heavens __ they are too! Istock managed to break something and then fix it ... wait for it ... ON THE SAME DAY!
330
« on: November 27, 2013, 12:12 »
Look in the HELP forum:
"LOBO UPDATE:
The issue was caused by a code push that occurred this afternoon. Worst case scenario we are going to have to wait until morning to have this resolved. Whereas it's not what anyone wants to hear, it probably how things are going to shake out tonight.
I will update the thread again as soon as I have more information to share.
Category selection when uploading files via the site interface is impacting contributors. It's a known issue that will also be addressed in the morning."
That's it then __ it probably means the end of the 'My Uploads' page for at least a month if not forever. Whenever Lobo says something will be fixed 'soon' or 'tomorrow', especially when preceded by the phrase "worst case", then it always takes weeks if not months to happen.
331
« on: November 27, 2013, 09:45 »
That's absolutely terrible news. He was so dedicated and his work was absolutely extraordinary, the finest photo-realistic illustrations I've ever seen. Such a shame for a young man who lived for his family. RIP.
332
« on: November 24, 2013, 20:12 »
It takes a lot of self promoting over there if you want good numbers, but worth it to put the time in.
It's important to be displayed in the right groups
http://fineartamerica.com/groups/q-collection.html
and participate in the FAA forum to be seen.
This one is new and promising:
http://qthecollection.com/qtalk/index.php
If you are active over there your sales will be much higher than if you just upload.
~Gunter Nezhoda
Portfolio Facebook Gunter Nezhoda Photography
Q is a group you created, the label Q means nothing, its not a recognised quality label, its nothing. You are picking images yourself, you are the curator of that group and when I look at your work, I dont think you are qualified to say what is quality and what isnt. The forum you linked to is probably your own forum, and only has 111 comments. Hardly a number that screams global exposure. I will get slated over this, but I just want to give balance to your comment for people who might think that the label Q has any merits. It doesnt.
Strewth! You actually made a reasoned argument, offered a new perspective and provided information to a discussion on MSG. I'm stunned. I even felt compelled to give your post a heart. We'll done, keep it up (and lose the multiple trivial nonsense posts).
333
« on: November 24, 2013, 19:56 »
But if the reviewer was unhappy with something else, why reject for "dust and scratches"?
No idea, haven't seen the image. At the end of the day, does pressing the wrong rejection reason really matter in the scheme of things?
I'd say yes, if it causes me to spend time looking for "dust" that isn't there.
You should already have known that "dust wasn't there" by having inspected your images at 100% prior to submission. SS are currently accepting more than 180k new images per week. That suggests a fairly low barrier to entry for new content, both technically and commercially.
334
« on: November 24, 2013, 19:44 »
Herg. Have you been paid yet? What was/is the problem?
335
« on: November 22, 2013, 14:24 »
Why don't you just quit responding altogether?
I've been thinking that might be a good idea. You even got a +1 from me.
i don't think you should let yourself be beaten. There are too few people posting here with a positive or neutral outlook.
What do mean by "a positive or neutral outlook"? Do you want people to not express their considered opinions or just post happy-clappy stuff or what? Or are you just looking for more people to agree with your point of view on everything?
336
« on: November 21, 2013, 18:35 »
However, since you've now declared you will quit iStock, it won't be a worry for you any more.
Darn, guess I better start uploading to Shutterstock. They have graphs.
They do indeed. SS have lots of graphs ... and a world map showing your sales too ... and real time sales data ... and no dodgy refunds ... or massive changes to the default sort order ... and all images earn their place equally without favour to more expensive images ... and transparent audited financial reporting of the business ... and a 'contributor relations' team that give lots of help on MSG ... and no RC system ... and lots of others things too.
337
« on: November 20, 2013, 20:53 »
Any news yet on 'the strange case of the missing $100'? I've been sat on my hands awaiting further developments for a couple of days now. The tension is unbearable.
339
« on: November 20, 2013, 15:01 »
See its happening to me too. Lisa gets 3 votes up, I agree with her, I get 4 votes down.
Its about who they like not about what is being said.
No, it's probably because Lisa CONTRIBUTES to the discussion. You just seem to write hundreds of nothing posts. Look at your last 4 above. Not one word about the subject of the thread.
340
« on: November 19, 2013, 15:34 »
I believe they will want to take it public again. But not yet. At the moment they seem to be in the process of building value. The down economy and pessimistic expectations gives them a good space within which to reinvent yet again IMO.
It's a thought __ if the public would buy it. The stock owning public seemed pretty grateful to sell out to H&F in 2007 though. Revenues have fallen since then, they've got all that debt and now a major competitor/threat has emerged in the form of SS. Seems to me that Getty's prospects now are a lot less rosy than they appeared to be in 2007.
341
« on: November 19, 2013, 14:38 »
I predict IStock will be sold again.
I think Getty is going to squeeze all the juice out and then throw the rest away.
No. Getty will be sold again (with IS included). Carlyle have a lot of money tied up in Getty and, with the level of debt and falling revenues reported, it's not clear to me where they are going to get a decent return from it. Getty have already squeezed all the juice out of IS anyway. So much so that they nearly killed it.
342
« on: November 19, 2013, 05:52 »
The contributors' side has been taken off-line again ... with a different picture this time.
343
« on: November 18, 2013, 03:35 »
Hello everyone,
As you may be aware, some have experienced issues recently accessing various areas of our sites. We are working to get things back in working order as soon as possible. Please remain patient during this time. Once the system is back up and running perfectly, we will inform you as soon as possible. Your patience is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Anthony Correia
Director, Contributor Success
Shutterstock|Bigstock
Thanks! While you're at it you couldn't pop over to Calgary and sort out those dozy plebs at Istock could you?
344
« on: November 18, 2013, 02:03 »
Forums still down (06.50 GMT)
Good. It's only pond life that ever use them.
345
« on: November 18, 2013, 01:56 »
Please re-direct this to the Symbiostock forum. Those of us that have chosen to block Symbiostock threads don't want this stuff cluttering the microstock forum.
346
« on: November 17, 2013, 18:30 »
I particularly liked "Shutterstock should be building space ships". I've absolutely no idea what Yuri is talking about but the sentence does have nice syntax.
I assumed he meant so that he could work out how to light it in outer space.
Only the bravest ones would board a space ship built by iStock.
A space ship? You'd need bollocks like coconuts to board a moped built by Istock.
347
« on: November 17, 2013, 18:25 »
Do you think that maybe they linked to the same servers that run the Obamacare site? 
No __ my guess is that the Istock 'development team' were there for a look & learn session and somehow got accidental access to the SS network.
348
« on: November 17, 2013, 18:17 »
My Shutterstock's Space Ships left orbit without telling us?
Whaa-hay!
349
« on: November 17, 2013, 17:08 »
Cathy just said she cannot really comment because these are obviously private negotiations, but she said there was pressure to "take sides". She never mentioned the agency or who it was of course. But I think she made it clear that they like being indepdent and appreciate the good working relationship they have with all the agencies.
I didn't hear anything new about Yuri or Andres deal. Or nothing that hasn't been mentioned or speculated here. Yuri did point out that he felt SS was stealing some of his ideas on how to do searches on peoplesimages and that he felt Offset was a good idea, but very late. So there are obviously many reasons he made those decisions.
He also very honestly talked about his challenges at being a manager and public figurehead. If he had the choice he wouldn't chose the spotlight again in this way, although it is easier to market a business with a public face. He also talked about how many risks he took and how they twice very nearly escaped financial disaster,even bankrupcy. Like I said, he was very straightforward.
Otherwise getty or istock weren't really an issue. The industry has enough creative and entrepreneurial people to move forward with or without them and the contributors share and connect irrespective of agencies.
You can watch the video of all the events online if you want.
Cracking summary Jasmine. Thank you very much. I hope I get to meet you at another Mexpo!
350
« on: November 17, 2013, 13:49 »
"If you like your own photography, you are not a good photographer"
What? Weird comment. This one too: "your image must be perfect to be bought" - unless "perfect" just means "perfect for the person buying it"/.
I particularly liked "Shutterstock should be building space ships". I've absolutely no idea what Yuri is talking about but the sentence does have nice syntax.
I assumed he meant so that he could work out how to light it in outer space.
Whaa-hay!!
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 210
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
