|
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 - Jo Ann Snover
3776
« on: January 29, 2014, 10:46 »
.. is the ridiculous RPD that makes it worthless for me to upload to them anymore!... My overall revenues did not go up year on year, and, to add insult to injury, the RPD has fallen flat on its face. Cant understand, what kind of a strategy is that!!?! 
I argued a bit via e-mail when they introduced subscriptions last year, but as they wouldn't offer an opt-out (and I was not part of the bridge) I voted with my feet and left BigStock last March. When SS was a new agency, they were very careful as the collection grew and they increased prices. After a price increase they watched what happened for a month or two and then set the new contributor rates. They needed to be sure that they could still make money given buyer behavior and a large part of what makes subscription pricing/royalty payments work for agencies is that buyers don't use their full download allowance. I think they wanted to experiment with BigStock but didn't want to take any risks with being out of pocket in case buyers used a ton more of their allowance when buying at the lower BigStock prices. So they produced this insane royalty schedule - some wit contacted them to ask if BigStock had had 50,000 downloads a year total, let alone from any one contributor! The only think I'm tentatively hopeful about is that this toxic rate schedule has not yet migrated to Shutterstock proper. I think Paul's experience speaks volumes - BS was brand new in 2005 and to reduce earnings to those levels isn't what I'd call a win 
3777
« on: January 29, 2014, 00:58 »
Thanks!
3778
« on: January 28, 2014, 19:54 »
But keep reading - it gets better with a Curator Network. To me, that sounds just like the setup of multi-level marketing schemes. You bring in people and make a percentage of what they earn.
Then there is some truly bizarre partnership with Instagram.
Sounds to me as if they want to sound big and exclusive but that they don't have enough content yet and are thus trying to actively recruit without appearing to be doing so.
The Moody's downgrade of Getty's debt wouldn't have put Getty at "$1 billion of turnover" - $897 million isn't a billion. They say they want top notch people: "We only invite contributors to join who we believe have highly salable content and we only take the content we believe has a very high chance of selling time and again." - but why wouldn't people that good just go to Getty directly? Why share the wealth with RooM?
Given how well Pocketstock worked out (ahem!) I don't think I'd give them my exclusive content even if I were the sort of contributor they're looking for (which I'm not).
3779
« on: January 28, 2014, 18:38 »
So I'm feeling shell shocked again, but I'm sure that'll be fine in a little while... Before you head back to illustrator-heaven Leo, can you update the sources on GitHub - the last commit I see from you was a couple of weeks ago and there have been updates since. It'll make it much easier to keep things going if we have the current code base at our disposal. And not only that I'll feel a whole lot less panicked if I know there's code there to update my fork from But if you feel like updating things more often, that'd be fine - why let a few frothy comments from a tiny minority of the 164-ish sites control where things go? I can't be the only site owner who does care but refuses to engage in fisticuffs in the forums, can I?
3780
« on: January 28, 2014, 17:29 »
Cathy has already switched her site to another WordPress template - i.e. isn't using Symbiostock any more...
You outed me Joann!  ...
I think your site did that all by itself. I went to check something a few days ago and saw immediately that things had changed. A quick peek at some pages showed which theme you'd switched to. But if you're going to speak out about what's wrong with Symbiostock (which you certainly have every right to) I think it's important that people know that you no longer have any skin in that game. Sorry if you weren't happy about it, but the site is public and anyone can see that it's no longer Symbiostock-based.
3781
« on: January 28, 2014, 17:18 »
I wonder how much money that person made before she disappeared. Did anyone get refunded? If not, its a disgrace. What happened to Syxtra? People paid for that? Discontinued as well.
I didn't ask for a refund for either of those and not for a slider I purchased (not just for Symbiostock) from a ThemeForest vendor, and not from a number of other software companies whose products I have used but which at some point are no longer relevant or useful. I wasn't promised lifetime free updates when I made the purchase, so I don't see it as disgraceful. It is unfortunate, but no more. This is just the way software is, so I don't see anything all that unusual about this situation.
3782
« on: January 28, 2014, 17:02 »
... Leaf, can you do me a favor and delete all of Symbiostock MSG threads? Thanks ...
Leo, I totally understand that you aren't happy that a thread which was meant to be positive (with an idea which I really like a lot, btw.) turned that way. But I don't think it's the right way to delete all Symbiostock MSG threads. We NEED MSG, I think.
Don't let negative voices get to much power over you (and the project)
Just my 2 cents.
Leaf, please don't delete the Symbiostock threads on MSG - there's a lot of information on here that it would be a shame to lose. MSG is always prone to mini volcanic eruptions of one sort or another - I think most of us who've been around here a while just ignore the venting and ranting and things in general don't get too out of hand. People can always delete their own posts if they wish - although sometimes I think it would be preferable to leave them, even if they're a bit intemperate.
3783
« on: January 28, 2014, 16:53 »
... I dont want to rebuild my site every time an update comes along. .....
yet another of your mis-statements --- updates to sym do not require any rebuilding of an existing site (unless you've changed the internal code for the theme, which is true of ANY WP theme)
Cathy had purchased Clean Theme 2.0 - as I had - and the author of that chose not to continue updating it as Symbiostock continued development. The route I took when I wanted to update my site after 2.6.5 was to bite the bullet and modify the Dragonfly child theme to look very similar to my previous Clean Theme version. It wasn't fun to do and this isn't something that will have to happen again (probably!) but I suspect that it's the disruption that Clean Theme becoming "orphaned" caused that Cathy is referring to. Going forward, no one else will be disrupted by that particular problem because Clean Theme is no longer for sale. (Just to be very specific, Leo did offer a version of Clean Theme he modified to work with the 2.8.x and up versions to anyone who previously purchased Clean Theme, but I opted not to take him up on that because I wanted to stop relying on something that effectively had no future)
3784
« on: January 28, 2014, 10:37 »
Cathy has already switched her site to another WordPress template - i.e. isn't using Symbiostock any more.
I don't know what the notion is of conspiracy but I don't have any links to Leo's site - I'm not an illustrator so it didn't seem appropriate - and I've made sales anyway. Not a ton, but then the site and the network is new and I'm expecting it to take time to build. I don't jump in and out of agency sites and I don't plan to assess Symbiostock week by week either.
It's fair enough to decide about having/keeping a Symbiostock site, but I can't see any reason for making claims about something "going on" as if there was anything underhanded about the setup.
3785
« on: January 26, 2014, 15:48 »
I was going to give you a link but apparently Leo has symbiostock.com down for some updates.
It's $75 (I think - that's what it was when I bought it) and it has the batch editor, multiple license times, an improved search that handles multiple word phrases (the base theme uses WordPress search) and I think the Twitter automated tweets (which i don't use and I'm not sure if they're in the premium plugin)
3786
« on: January 24, 2014, 17:56 »
Except that they introduced a toxic redeemed credits scheme, I'd heartily endorse 123rf. I haven't uploaded there since they announced that (so late 2012 some time) and I still make payout every month with what I uploaded before, so even at 45% (that's what I dropped to) versus 50% it's not bad. Their stuff is cheap and there are lots of subs though, so they're not without other flaws.
I still hold out hope that they may undo some of their contributor-unfriendly changes, but as a new contributor, your rates will truly suck for a while until you build up sales to lift your percentage
PhotoDune is a slow and steady earner (more regular than CanStock which has comatose periods with occasional lifts from Fotosearch sales at higher rates). PD had a reputation for rock-bottom royalties, but they run from $2.97 for an XXL to 33 cents for XS - no subscriptions.
3787
« on: January 24, 2014, 12:30 »
Apparently you can't read these forums without being logged in, so I can't see what you're referring to, but lots of people are very wrong about copyright issues, so I'd purse infringements and ignore any blather to the contrary.
DMCA is a start, but are you seeking to get paid for prior sales? That might be more expensive to pursue and potentially not financially sane.
3788
« on: January 24, 2014, 12:27 »
I checked stats this morning and was able to see my January downloads.
I've found the downloads page to be highly flaky. There are days when I see more downloads when I select a specific date and click view than when I look at the whole month list. Sometimes it's the other way around - sale that show up in the list for the whole month but are missing if I select just that day to view. In general things sort themselves out over time though and given how far we are into January, I'd contact support about this.
3789
« on: January 23, 2014, 14:59 »
3790
« on: January 23, 2014, 12:59 »
Curious as to how this latest screw-up is going to affect iStock getting out the tax forms on time???
Not sure if they do anything for Canadian residents, but iStock doesn't send out 1099s to US residents, so it won't affect anything for those of us in the US. I assume the US is no different to them from any other country that isn't Canada
3791
« on: January 23, 2014, 02:12 »
Captcha is back for me and I just logged in
3792
« on: January 22, 2014, 20:09 »
I logged out and the captcha's missing. Looking at the page, it's not that intended to remove it as the code is still in there...
I can log in on my phone just fine - if you just need to see balance and what sold
3793
« on: January 22, 2014, 17:50 »
iStock's woes are an own goal.
SS has been out there since 2004 and iStock did just great for a long time in spite of them (and other competitors).
Can't blame other businesses for picking up the pieces when Getty and two private equity vultures companies ruined iStock
3794
« on: January 22, 2014, 15:38 »
But at iStock in 2005 there was no option for a single sale that would net you $114 in royalties (that's the largest single SOD sale I've had so far at SS). Just sayin'
Wrong. I had an EL more or less at this time for more than that. Not automated, not a direct download option, but negotiated on the phone.
There are always special people with special options I'm a peasant and even at Shutterstock, even a peasant can earn royalties over $75 or over $100 multiple times and although very happy to see something substantial, not have it be a one-off or just for them. I don't think lots of people, lots of the time were earning $100+ royalties at iStock in 2005. But if it makes you feel I've more accurately represented what was going on in 2005 at istock, I'll rephrase: But at iStock in 2005 most people weren't seeing sales that would net you $114 in royalties (that's the largest single SOD sale I've had so far at SS). Just sayin'
3795
« on: January 22, 2014, 10:49 »
But at iStock in 2005 there was no option for a single sale that would net you $114 in royalties (that's the largest single SOD sale I've had so far at SS). Just sayin'
Is that for 'sensitive' use?
I don't think so given the subjects. Here's a sample - $72 house in snow, $102 lunch sack $111.47 christmas candles $90 front door $82.50 house after snow
3796
« on: January 21, 2014, 21:00 »
So there's nothing you can buy for 1 credit any more?
It's a price hike for bloggers and other users of small images for the web - they have to buy something that's about 800 pixels on the long edge versus about 400 at other sites where you can buy a blog size.
Of all the "simplifications" buyers might have asked for (see the thread for the explanation that this was to simplify the site) they picked this end of the price scale?? Really??
3797
« on: January 21, 2014, 17:56 »
But at iStock in 2005 there was no option for a single sale that would net you $114 in royalties (that's the largest single SOD sale I've had so far at SS). Just sayin'
3798
« on: January 19, 2014, 12:10 »
Today's email said they're launching but that they still haven't fixed the problem reading descriptions from IPTC
Why?
I may be off base, but there seems to be something wrong that functionality this basic hasn't been fixed after such a long time of "working on it". And that they're launching anyway
Once they have this working, I'll upload to give the site a try
3799
« on: January 17, 2014, 19:00 »
If you look at the numbers on this new deal - and on the monthly limit subscriptions, FT will make out like bandits if they can get customers to go for this.
Fotolia's cut of the total customer payment is waaay higher on a monthly limit subscription or on the "dollar club". I don't keep track of their prices and royalties any more but I just went to take a look.
A one month subscription costs $249 and although they theoretically could have 750 images for that price, experience suggests no one does.
A monthly limit subscription for full size images costs $80 for 50 images. Or you could have 100 images if you only need medium size or smaller.
If you're accepted into the dollar fraternity you'd pay $50 ($10 monthly fee and $1 each for the other 40 images).
For the sake of an example, let's take a royalty rate of 30 cents (the range is from .25 credit for white to .40 credit for diamond)
For the daily download limit ($249) subscription, if a buyer uses 650 of their 750, FT pays out $195 or 78% of the gross. If the buyer only takes 500 images, FT pays out 60%
For the monthly limit of 50, FT pays out $15 for the full size images - or 18% of the gross. If they go for medium sizes, then FT pays out $30 or 37.5%. Both are clearly a huge win for them over the contributor.
For the dollar bin club, they'd be paying out $15 or 30% of the gross.
So they get to cut the contributor's share while increasing their own. Very nice...not
3800
« on: January 17, 2014, 13:51 »
...The site needs posters representing a variety of different perspectives and experiences.
True, but I hardly think tickstock's ranting qualified as perspective and I don't recall him/her sharing actual experiences much. To be fair, I had this poster ignored, but as so many people I don't ignore kept quoting his/her knee-jerk responses I saw a lot of it anyway. There are plenty of iStock exclusives who can and do make their perspectives known here (and on FB where I also interact with them). It isn't useful at all when someone posts about a negative regarding iStock and people like tickstock jump in with a "Shutterstock sucks" or other irrelevant comment. That's not free speech - it's trolling. I've no idea who tickstock is but I can't imagine anyone at iStock or Getty caring enough about what's said here to send anyone in to participate. If they cared about community involvement, they wouldn't have destroyed the iStock forums, rendering a once vibrant place a virtual desert. And not even Getty's daft enough to think that sending in a troll is going to do squat to overcome the negative opinions of them their own policies and behaviors have brought about.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
