|
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 - Freedom
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 48
351
« on: December 15, 2012, 16:31 »
I like the girl taking medicine, girl reading on the lawn, and second man with alarm clock. I really like the girl in tennis court, but like Lisafx said, the tennis racket was not a good idea. You have good concepts and composition, however, special attention should be paid to the highlights (overblown details?) and shadows(noise?), iStock is very picky on technical details. Since we cannot see the photos at 100%, you should make sure the focal points were correctly set and sharp.
352
« on: December 15, 2012, 15:33 »
We all agree iStock deserves to be criticized, however, it is not nice to wish for its demise. Indies should be sensitive to the fact that many people are still receiving meaningful income from it, including indies. Just because iStock did injustice to you, it's not fair to sink the ship with many innocent victims with it. Sometimes I find it ironic for those who complain about poor sales while trying to bring down iStock at the same time.
As one of the indies that would prefer for Istock to get its act together and recover from this tailspin, I am well aware how important they have been to the balance of the microstock industry. I continue to believe that Istock making exclusives happy while providing a stable platform for all of us to sell our images would be ideal.
However I must object to the notion that my and other indie contributors efforts to redirect our buyers to other, more equitable sites are responsible for "bringing down Istock". Istockphoto's demise is entirely self-inflicted. I am sure that if you review their business decisions of the past two years you will agree.
According to your logic, Lisafx, may we come to the conclusion that if you ever complain that sales are not satisfactory at iStock, they must be self-inflicted? Let's go back to the original topic, the issue is when iStock has a new web page, whether or not anyone can say anything positive about it. That was Sean's point, right? Also does it mean that if iStock has caused you grievance because of their management's greed, you can justify yourself to wish everyone else working for and selling through iStock sink with the boat because your own financial interests are not met, in other words, perhaps because of your own greed?
353
« on: December 14, 2012, 21:35 »
Yes, I think we have a problem here in that contributors turn against contributors at times. The fact is we should all be on the same side, regardless of allegiances to any particular agency.
Every contributor who takes this seriously is working bloody hard to create or maintain something stable on shifting sands. We all know it's not easy, and we all understand eachothers' predicament better than the agencies do.
I agree. I was once an indie too. I just cannot imagine that other agencies, including Alamy, not to mention FT and DT, would allow the contributors to voice as much resentment as iStock has been on its own forums, so in this capacity, iStock is far more democratic than most agencies. Besides, you folks should understand Rebecca Rockafellar is just a general manager, her role is to manage, and not to set mandate. If you want to have real and substantial changes, you should find audience of Johnathan Klein and Carlyle management. When people praise the new face of iStock website, it is a affirmation of the employees, the front line workers, who have been working hard to make things better. It is not just and fair to insult these people and their efforts, and shoot any of your colleagues as suckers.
Can we be happier? Happy holidays, everyone.
So now, istock is democratic?
And they work hard? and all is good? they probably smile awhile.
Not correct. Istock is the banana republic of stock and it has dug its own grave.
Nope, but they may not be the worst. Some of the comments are childish to say the least. Grave or not, all of us, including businesses, will go there one day. Just it's not your party time yet.
354
« on: December 14, 2012, 19:36 »
Yes, I think we have a problem here in that contributors turn against contributors at times. The fact is we should all be on the same side, regardless of allegiances to any particular agency.
Every contributor who takes this seriously is working bloody hard to create or maintain something stable on shifting sands. We all know it's not easy, and we all understand eachothers' predicament better than the agencies do.
I agree. I was once an indie too. I just cannot imagine that other agencies, including Alamy, not to mention FT and DT, would allow the contributors to voice as much resentment as iStock has been on its own forums, so in this capacity, iStock is far more democratic than most agencies. Besides, you folks should understand Rebecca Rockafellar is just a general manager, her role is to manage, and not to set mandate. If you want to have real and substantial changes, you should find audience of Johnathan Klein and Carlyle management. When people praise the new face of iStock website, it is a affirmation of the employees, the front line workers, who have been working hard to make things better. It is not just and fair to insult these people and their efforts, and shoot any of your colleagues as suckers. Can we be happier? Happy holidays, everyone.
355
« on: December 14, 2012, 19:19 »
Looking at all the giddy responses makes me think iStock is a cult.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349765&page=1
So, what? We're never allowed to respond positively to an initiative?
Sean, I am with you. We all agree iStock deserves to be criticized, however, it is not nice to wish for its demise. Indies should be sensitive to the fact that many people are still receiving meaningful income from it, including indies. Just because iStock did injustice to you, it's not fair to sink the ship with many innocent victims with it. Sometimes I find it ironic for those who complain about poor sales while trying to bring down iStock at the same time.
356
« on: December 11, 2012, 23:52 »
If it could be fixed in the couple of days that the thread on IS has been active, why wasn't it fixed before?
I speculated before, I think I was right. Before the new boss took over, there was no clear directions, and probably no funding either. Ain't we disappointed that doomsday didn't happen after all?? 
357
« on: December 10, 2012, 04:15 »
....To be fair to her, she was not the one who started the RC and decline.
But she has been the boss for over a year, wouldn't anyone capable of making positive changes start doing something much sooner than this? Do you think istock is better now than a year ago? And from her comments in the forum, she has very little understanding of the problems most of us see with the site. She has already told us she can't do much about the big things that have ruined istock for many of us, like the commission cuts below 20% and the RC levels, that obviously should of been lowered a lot when many of their buyers were sent to Thinkstock.
I am not defending her, but as many have pointed out, when Getty was going through the due diligence of an acquisition, as well as a possible IPO if I remember correctly, the board may not be able to provide a clear direction to her. Clearly she did not come to the forum to open her heart because her conscience suddenly awoke. It is most likely a boss wanted her to do this for some reason. Why? Your guess is as good as mine.
358
« on: December 09, 2012, 19:22 »
The reality is....why did she make that post?
1. Are they seeing a defect rate that is killing sales?
2. Is she trying to appease contributors for a "bit" longer to string us along long enough to pay off those venture capitalists?
3. Is she trying to deflect "communication" from "commission"?
4. ADD YOUR OWN SPECULATION HERE.......
Why? My speculation is she got the instruction from Carlyle and Klein to test the water. It could be someone who got the attention of the power that be. She said herself that her role is limited, many things on contributors wishlist are beyond her power. Now she has got the Pandora's box open, it is interesting to see the next. To be fair to her, she was not the one who started the RC and decline.
359
« on: December 08, 2012, 15:13 »
I really don't get what . Rebecca thought she was doing. Her post was alternately defensive and hostile. How exactly was this sort of communication supposed to improve anything? Not that the biggest problem at iStock is one of communication. It's all about performance, what contributors have to put up with and what we get in return. And that's a growing disaster with no sign of letting up. At least it is for me; your mileage may vary.
Neither Rebecca nor KKT would be the major decision makers. Klein is the directing mind behind all these with the old/new owners. She stepped out just to say, ok, we are going to fix some issues, such as the zoom (so we have paid attention to your complaints), now you guys be quiet and nice to us (when we take our next steps). Remember back when Bruce was having fights with Klein and open about the disagreements? Klein has the habit of using front line people to convey tough messages. Bruce and Kelly, being a part of the traditional iStock community, appeared friendly and attentive. Klein and Rebecca are not part of it and they will not be. It is naive to think the old "community spirit" will return. What matters to all of us, is the bottom line. It will be interesting to see if they will make win-win next steps, or win-loss (eventually loss-loss).
360
« on: December 08, 2012, 05:07 »
I feel Rebecca is just the messenger. She is testing the water for her bosses. I wonder what is cooking for the new year.
361
« on: November 28, 2012, 15:31 »
I will stay on my current level. Thought I could reach the next level if the sales were normal from Sep - Nov, sadly it did not happen and my RC level will not change.
362
« on: November 26, 2012, 17:52 »
I happened to find an old interview in May/June 2009 issue of Digital Photo Pro, where Nick Evans -Lombe, GI's COO said:
"We launched the Portal for photographers last June. It's one of the things that the acquisition of iStockphoto really helped us with. From an internal operational perspective, we were quite envious of the tools they had that enabled photographers to quickly get imagery out to market. The Portal has also enabled photographers to have more input over how their images are keyworded, so they can add more of their vision as to what that image is all aboout."
Is it possible that the problem is at Getty's end, and it affects iStock?
363
« on: November 21, 2012, 22:03 »
Hey, happy Thanksgiving everyone!  I thought there would be no DLs today, but some DLs were just reported in the evening, much later than the usual time.
364
« on: November 21, 2012, 14:32 »
"Lame sales or not. The discussion topic is not about the sales volume but rather about the drop from 60% to 50% commission for contributors."
But it's linked. I have felt that the amount I pay IS is more ir less acceptable for the amount of business they are bringing me. I don't see giving Alsmy another 10% is going to result in much, and if it is for a new 'growth project', they should be able to return the 10% when it is finished. But they won't, of course.
I agree with Sean, although I am not going to defend IS in this thread. Alamy has cut not just the percentage to us, it has greatly reduced the prices of our images therefore my revenue has been constantly declining even though I have added more images. It usually takes 4 months or more to get a sale cleared and another month of two to get contributor paid. It used to send out a cheque so we receive the payment in the first week of the month. Now with Paypal, it takes two weeks to get the money. Apparently Alamy is not doing great in the past few years with increased competition. I think Alamy should focus on improving their marketing and niche, instead of squeezing the contributors harder for their loss in the market place. If they don't improve their marketing and stop losing market shares, they will cut more, any doubt about that?
365
« on: November 20, 2012, 17:54 »
The probability is, although Alamy sales are up, their revenue is down because they have drastically reduced prices. Most of my sales used to be way above $100/dl, now most are below $100.
They didn't say it was unsustainable, but that might be the truth, in order to stay profitable, for the owner, of course.
366
« on: November 20, 2012, 15:54 »
Maybe Alamy is just not the kind of saint some thought they were!
I can live with the 50% split, but find the slow reporting and payment troubling. Does any agency delay payment for as long?
367
« on: November 16, 2012, 14:30 »
IS is obviously lack of clear leadership at this time. But it is not surprising. New owners must be in discussion with Getty/Klein people about the new directions. The future is uncertain. It could get better or worse.
368
« on: November 16, 2012, 14:12 »
Not one dl today. This is beyond a joke.
I had one, just an xs though. 
369
« on: November 16, 2012, 13:20 »
I hope you are right, Freedom. This month, I've seen stretches of 3 and 4 days without a single download. My portfolio is tiny, but that hasn't happened for me in over 4 years. And usually October/November are my best months. I hate to contemplate dropping exclusive and uploading to other sites. Just the time/effort of researching how to go about that is a big barrier for me. :/
I am not sure if I am right. I don't have any inside information. Maybe the new owner is going to cancel the exclusive deal altogether. If your portfolio is tiny and you are not planning to be highly productive in the coming months, I don't see how your situation will be improved by going independent.
370
« on: November 15, 2012, 18:55 »
I am going to speculate, just from common sense.
As we know, 3.3 billion dollars have changed hands for Getty, it is unlikely just for a piece of junk. Just imagine if you spend 330,00 to buy a new house, will you do some house cleaning and fixing before moving in? Will you hire a new nanny if you can afford it? Will you dismiss the old housekeeper and doorman if you cannot afford it? If the door was not answered, it is most likely the new owner has not moved in and no one was inside. But the new owner will take over. It's hard to say if the new owner can maintain the house well though. I will give it sometime before I believe it's the end of the world.
Besides, where else can you go? SS? DT? FT? Have we heard complaints about slow sales everywhere?
Alamy? I have sales there every month, but I only get paid no more than 3 times a year. They are in no hurry to collect money and distribute it. I will starve to death if I wait for Alamy money. The whole year's sales in Alamy often is only a month's worth in IS.
Just a reality check for myself.
371
« on: November 14, 2012, 16:44 »
Could it be that the person in charge of payout was let go?
It seems Istock has laid off a number of people lately, including Alysia, the woman in CR. I don't know if they also reduced the number of inspectors because I think the queue is getting long again.
372
« on: November 13, 2012, 19:36 »
While I am not happy about the sales in November, keep in mind that a significant portion of E+ files have been moved to Getty. We may see some higher priced Getty sales either the end of November or later. Who knows.
373
« on: November 13, 2012, 17:50 »
<snip>
Lots of criticism of the IT team, with daily crashes and server malfunctions, but it might be that they are simply struggling to hold the thing together and don't have any spare time to fix any of the database and structural problems.
I still think they're trying to band-aid it and keep it running until they can finish working on how to adsorb it into Getty Images. Priority #1 is keep it running until the absorption plan and technology are done. Everything else isn't a priority.
I think we'll see another big announcement in 2013. Either IS will have a different backend technology, possibly the Gettyimages.com system, or IS becomes collections with GI.
I would agree there might be some truth in it.
374
« on: November 13, 2012, 16:22 »
By the way, I just clicked on a couple of ports of my friends. The ports showed 0 images. Maybe today IS is tweaking the site again.
Oops, one of the ports is showing now, but it took a while.
375
« on: November 13, 2012, 15:38 »
I see most of your files are videos. You have less than 500 photos. When I said I had sales in the last 4 days, I meant photos.
Today is extremely slow, but sometimes the sales got reported late in the day, if it could be a small comfort to you.
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 48
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
