|
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 - SNP
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 54
326
« on: October 26, 2011, 19:53 »
Getty = High Value
IS = Medium Value
TS/Photos.com = Low Value/Beginner
The fact that IS no longer has a dedicated CEO and the new GM is an E-Commerce Project Manager in a part time leadership role would indicate this is the direction they're headed. Consolidation of all sites to one common technology platform.
I clipped your quote...sorry. but I think this sums up the direction I believe they're going in too. a massive imagery hub that leads to assets at all price points. in theory I don't think that's a bad model. in practice, however, experience tells us that they'll keep pitting us versus them. if they don't take care to keep contributors fairly compensated for performing...this model will not be sustainable for contributors, and we'll go elsewhere or return to traditional photography ventures. if they take care to maintain contributor relationships, and consistently ensure long-term growth and a system of fair/achievable goals, they could do really well with this model...assuming they keep assets separate and not mirrored at various price points.
327
« on: October 26, 2011, 19:34 »
how many people commenting in here actually watched the interview?...never mind
328
« on: October 26, 2011, 19:00 »
^ I think you're pulling something out of the interview that isn't there. what is painful to watch is the interviewer. granted, language is obviously an issue, but I suspect he's terrible at interviewing in Italian too. I really can't understand the way people are characterized here. Kelly was exactly the way he was when I met him for the first time in London-- he was sincere and accessible. I agree that in writing he has come across in forums like he's detached from the community. in person he's not like that and I think he did well in this interview. I know that will be met with groans and goading...but so be it. in particular, he emphasized how well beyond the competition iStock is in terms of revenue. you can deny that all you want. doesn't make it untrue.
where they're really screwing up is NOT taking care to create a long-term growth situation for individual contributors. they've taken away so much incentive to produce, as well as placing goals well out of reach. they may be sitting pretty right now, but what happens when exclusive contributors, big ones, continue to express dissatisfaction? we keep seeing it reported over and over--major contributors losing sales...bad bad bad
329
« on: October 26, 2011, 14:37 »
I agree 100% that the simplest, corniest files sometimes end up being so commercially valuable, that it's like a kick in the pants to all the complex, artsy stuff we shoot.....
Simplicity is flexible. Being artistic is like adding filters (in fact, often it is adding filters) it limits the usage of the image.
I think artistic is more than adding filters....but otherwise I agree completely with what you've said
330
« on: October 26, 2011, 13:08 »
me too...just relaying what we were told.
anything else that was said ? Tell us everything you know 
I've shared what we were told already. most of it was general and somewhat vague. and for the record, I don't feel obligated to share anything. but if it's relevant, I don't have a problem discussing some of the plans, which they've already discussed publicly anyways. I know people think that some secret society happens at a Lypse, but it's really not like that.
331
« on: October 26, 2011, 12:55 »
In London someone asked about rejected files going to the partner program....we were told, fairly definitely, that this would not be happening. the reason given was that during many of the server renos etc., storage of data concerning reasons for a file's rejection was not maintained...therefore they couldn't just truck over rejected files (many of which may have been rejected due to copyright issues/lack of release etc.). I believe that they have zero plans for rejected content.
Funny - I can see my rejection reasons right back to when I started.
me too...just relaying what we were told.
332
« on: October 26, 2011, 12:53 »
I suppose that would not exclude a system applicable to new content under which they could decide that particular images / batches would be most at home at the PP sites.
The idea of some human deciding what stuff should be sold where makes my skin crawl. It would kill the genius of microstock -- the brilliant notion of accepting anything technically sound and then allowing the market to determine the fate of the file through the Best Match mechanism.
There are some pretty weird bestsellers in microstock, stuff that's so simple or so corny that no up-his-arse editor would ever have given it the nod. Only a pure market mechanism could ever have revealed that such images had enormous commercial value.
I agree with you in general. at the same time, there's an argument for files being designated to higher priced collections, where they do sell well, like Vetta. but I agree 100% that the simplest, corniest files sometimes end up being so commercially valuable, that it's like a kick in the pants to all the complex, artsy stuff we shoot.....
333
« on: October 26, 2011, 12:36 »
In London someone asked about rejected files going to the partner program....we were told, fairly definitely, that this would not be happening. the reason given was that during many of the server renos etc., storage of data concerning reasons for a file's rejection was not maintained...therefore they couldn't just truck over rejected files (many of which may have been rejected due to copyright issues/lack of release etc.). I believe that they have zero plans for rejected content.
I suppose that would not exclude a system applicable to new content under which they could decide that particular images / batches would be most at home at the PP sites.
I would agree that's a possibility. I think a new upload system will include designating files to collections right out of queue, much like it is now, but more tiers
334
« on: October 26, 2011, 11:44 »
In London someone asked about rejected files going to the partner program....we were told, fairly definitely, that this would not be happening. the reason given was that during many of the server renos etc., storage of data concerning reasons for a file's rejection was not maintained...therefore they couldn't just truck over rejected files (many of which may have been rejected due to copyright issues/lack of release etc.). I believe that they have zero plans for rejected content.
though it is a policy that drives me nuts, I think one main reason for maintaining exclusive rights over rejected content is that it's often part of a series or similar to other accepted files.
As for the new upload system, they talked about that in London vaguely too. my take away was that it will be a batch upload system, much like Getty's. I hate the idea of it and am not looking forward to it. especially since it seems it will hinder our ability to strategically upload in waves, which I do.
335
« on: October 26, 2011, 11:23 »
Of course, the match itself will change as files age, some are bought and new ones arrive. It's bound to shuffle arround every time it is recalculated but that doesn't tell you whether the algorithm constructing the match has changed. It's algorithm changes that send everything haywire.
but I mean the default search itself changes from best match to file age...randomly (it seems)....I haven't noticed it default to anything but best match or FA....but it still presents buyers with file age as default search once in a while. so while they're telling us that best match isn't changing, they're neglecting to mention that the default search return is changing periodically--that is if this is by design. It could have been a bug, or a coincidence. but as I mentioned, I use Firefox and I don't save cookies between browser sessions.
336
« on: October 25, 2011, 18:54 »
last week was fantastic, this week so far....average-below average. I don't see a major best match shift...but have noticed (and I think someone else might have mentioned it) that when you visit portfolios or perform searches on iStock; every once in a while the default search is not best match. default seems to be file age every x number of searches (don't know what x is equal to, could be random).
when Lobo stated that nothing had changed in best match....could have been a pretty good red herring....that may be true that the best match wasn't changed...however the default search format may be dynamic now. buyers wouldn't necessarily notice they're being presented with newest files first in search results instead of best match sometimes. and it doesn't correspond with my default display settings, nor do I save cookies between browser sessions
sorry if I'm discussing something already discussed. there are too many threads to weed through.
337
« on: October 24, 2011, 07:26 »
iStock also has that rule (although not officially stated in the ASA) about similars. I've had that discussion with contributor relations at iStock about submitting different images as RM elsewhere. my concern, again was editorial. because iStock doesn't accept celebrities and a lot of other usual editorial content, I want to sell those files as RM outside of iStock. but they've told me I can't sell any similars or related images as RM, if anything else from those series or similars are sold on iStock.
and of course, the definition of 'similar' is subjective.
338
« on: October 22, 2011, 10:26 »
Nice or not, their greedy capitalistic logic is not going to work long term, instead of milking the cow, they'll settle for huge short term profits, mess up the site completely and then sell it. IS will never recover if it keeps on going like this for a while. Unless they have some super strategy which is taking longer than expected to incorporate (I highly doubt that).
And of course I wish traffic would go up, why wouldn't I want to earn more? Unless it goes to sites that will pay me at least 3 times the royalties (50%+)
I have to mostly agree with this sentiment. though, I think what people are calling greed is in fact just the driving force of capitalism--being in a constant state of wanting more. semantics, but not really. we're all capitalists selling in this type of industry. and frankly it is capitalist advertising and marketing that keeps us in business. so while I agree with your assessment that the agencies are throwing us to the wolves for short term profit growth and resale...I think a non-capitalist culture would hang our industry completely. free market economies require constant marketing presence, and thank goodness for us. maybe it's naive, but I think there is a place for sustainable, fair trade capitalism in the world. but as long as consumers want bargains....this is how it will be. consumers are the wheels on the bus dude
339
« on: October 22, 2011, 00:43 »
October is on track to be my worst month on istock in 5 years (since December 2006). That's pretty pathetic to say the least.
That is beyond crazy and shocking. And coming from one of the great microstock portfolios. December 2006 is less than a year after I started microstocking. I am literally shocked.
Istock needs to show an interest in providing reasonable stability for its stars. People need to be able to budget. Hopefully, the stuffed shirts running the show are not thinking that they've got the top earners over a barrel.
well put. I agree. it makes me really nervous when people like nico_blue and Sean are seeing numbers dropping.
340
« on: October 21, 2011, 23:41 »
I understand why it "feels" wrong (to me) to license something on Alamy as RM if it's available as RF elsewhere. That feels 100% wrong.
But what if it is not available as RF elsewhere, but had been sold a few times under an RF license? As long as it is not currently for sale as RF, why is it wrong to offer an image as RM? Yes, one of the RF buyers might use the image again. So? As long as you do not ever, ever, ever sell it as RM exclusive, what's the big deal with selling it as RM after it's sold as RF?
I'm not trying to open that can of worms, just trying to understand the issue.
it's my understanding that the price associated with an RM license is determined by the usage. for example, an RM file doesn't have a fixed price, but would be priced based on the projected revenue scale of the project it is being used in. the photographer keeps all copyright and ownership of the image. exclusive RM is self-explanatory. therefore if the same file is being sold simultaneously as RF, usage would not be as clearly prescribed or limited. thus the two licenses compete directly. this is a good resource explaining RM vs RF http://danheller.blogspot.com/2007/01/rf-vs-rm-which-is-more-profitable.html
341
« on: October 21, 2011, 20:35 »
thank you...getting my ducks in a row first, then I'll update once I get going on my submissions.
342
« on: October 21, 2011, 20:22 »
any images I would license on Alamy would not be anywhere else. they would be editorial that iStock won't accept and that I'm not sending to news wires. if Alamy's new breaking news format seems to work well, I might even supply there instead of elsewhere. but I'd never supply the same content as RM if it is already sold as RF. my sense of integrity wouldn't allow me to do something like this either.
iStock's exclusivity contract won't let us license anything as RF, no matter what it is. even if it isn't admissible on iStock. so I'm looking for a cozy home for my unpublished editorial images as RM.
343
« on: October 21, 2011, 19:59 »
thanks everyone, appreciate the quick replies. racephoto, yes, that's where I see the info....also when I look at image size....cheers
344
« on: October 21, 2011, 19:43 »
The smallest size I will submit to Alamy is 3604x2403. Not sure if that helps you but it's 8.66 megapixel.
thanks. on another submission topic, I read that I can designate RM licenses only on Alamy when I upload. is this correct?
345
« on: October 21, 2011, 18:47 »
okay, thank you. didn't want to go to the trouble and have problems over something stupid like not following directions.
346
« on: October 21, 2011, 18:41 »
^ I agree - I think that bill takes things to an absurd level of control...there's a happy medium somewhere
347
« on: October 21, 2011, 18:35 »
thanks everyone. glad it wasn't just me being a twit. appreciate the info. so if my pixel dimension number is 54.6....is that large enough? I shoot Nikon D3X
348
« on: October 21, 2011, 14:48 »
I'm preparing some images for submission to Alamy for the four "test" images. The following submission guideline is not clear, are they asking for files larger than 24MB. of course they want jpegs which are not uncompressed and most of my jpegs after processing are on average about 10MB.
"Uncompressed file sizes of more than 24MB. This means you should make your JPEG file from an 8 bit TIFF file that is at least 24MB. If you have a camera that is capable of producing an uncompressed 8 bit file of over 24MB then leave it that size."
thanks for additional clarity...
349
« on: October 20, 2011, 22:39 »
Thanks to the person who had saved out the expunged post I mentioned earlier, in response to Lobo's nippy note about 'we won't be answering your questions in the forum: contact CR, Scout or artists@.
~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry, wrong thread, so I've moved it to the Unreleased Copyrighted Material No Longer Accepted thread. Sorry Stacey for 'orphaning' your comment.
no problem. it provided fodder for gostwyck to whinge about tonight, so at least it was a productive evening for him ;-)
350
« on: October 20, 2011, 19:13 »
I'm not religious, but his name has never gotten me upset, as it seems to have you...who cares? his posts are thoughtful and relevant. and long--my guess is that he seems to wait until he's read a lot about a discussion before jumping in. he is one of the posters I often keep an eye on in threads and he is generous with advice.
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 54
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
