|
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 - Sadstock
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24
426
« on: May 08, 2011, 10:18 »
Just out of curiosity, did iStock contact any of those dropping the crown for a debriefing?
I remember once on here Lobo (as Pieman) saying that he regularly monitored those leaving exclusivity.
I'd have thought that if they were interested in maintaining the exclusivity program (tbh, I'm surprised they haven't just dropped it), they should get feedback on why people are leaving the program.
------------------------------------ Never heard a peep from them. Maybe because I spoke out enough in the forums, they knew why I was leaving.
427
« on: May 07, 2011, 13:44 »
Kelly's assertion that the net change was a + .1% in increase decrease in royalties for Istock contributors is just nonsense. Would Istock have put the entire community through what they did for .1%??? They could have achieved a greater outcome with a .2% increase in prices. And as the OP points out there were all these other changes at the same time that took money from contributors pockets and put it into Istock's. If the net change is .1% somebody is getting a lot more in royalties then they were before. So who is getting paid all that money? Base/Bronze/Silver contributors who are getting paid at diamond levels because they sold that many Vetta images last year?  edited per pancaketom's point (I'd not had coffee yet)
428
« on: May 05, 2011, 21:17 »
Kelly's answer:
You know what, Kelly does read, and worked his ass off to get the interview so millions of people could read it and remember to come to iStock to buy stuff. As did the rest of the team. And the 15-some interviews we did in the last two weeks in Italy & London.
But I do apologize as I may have botched what I was trying to say. The PR team warned me after the interview I had been very unclear in that section and was jumping around. I think I answered his questions out of order. The fraction of a percent was definitely about the total change in royalties paid out, not the number of people it affected. So I don't think I said that, but it was a 3 hour interview. And I'm jet lagged. And I've screwed up worse before--it's not out of the realm of possibilities.
We announced some important things on CNET today. Please concentrate on which of all your files will work as PNGs. That's exciting news, and we'll be the first agency to have them. And hopefully enjoy the bump in sales these articles (usually) give us.
------------------------------------------------- Really? This is the best he's got? Reading this sure sounds to me like he's saying he really does not have what it takes to be a CEO/COO. Its a really hard and demanding job, which is why few people are cut out for it. Successful ones get this stuff right regardless of how long the interview is, even when jet lagged, even if it means reaching out to the writer a couple of hours/days later to ensure they have the information you want them to have. Successful ones sure don't whine to/about their key suppliers for being pissed when the he admits that maybe he screwed up again (not as bad as before, really) but he can't be sure (though his people thought he muffed it). Wow
429
« on: May 04, 2011, 20:38 »
Shutterstock now rejects everything! That can not be right!
That suggests to me that there's something about your images that the reviewers don't like. When I get mass rejections, I can generally find some common quality to explain it. I've been able to get my acceptance rate back up by concentrating on those characteristics Shutterstock reviewers find objectionable. If you can't, I'm guessing you aren't trying very hard.
------------------------------------ Seems a little harsh don't you think? Do you really know how hard anyone else here tries? Are you that sure that you know what SS is doing that you can say its the contributor's fault? There are a number of threads here and on the SS forums suggesting that there is a significant change in SS acceptance policies for some but seemingly not all contributors.
430
« on: May 04, 2011, 20:31 »
Welcome to the dark light lobo free side.  Wonder if anyone will let you reactivate old images?
432
« on: May 03, 2011, 20:41 »
The one thing Shutterstock is not getting right is their new acceptance policy (seemingly not applied to everyone the same way so your mileage may vary). My acceptance rate is something like 35%. My stuff sells well on Istock and has been accepted at FT and DS, but not on SS.
I'm seriously considering participation at Thinkstock since its clear that I will never get the vast majority of my 4K plus existing images onto SS. I never thought I'd say that as I hate the role that TS seems to be set up for in terms of gutting Istock.
I don't understand how it helps SS to encourage former IS exclusives to feed TS?
433
« on: May 03, 2011, 20:22 »
Snip
I guess what this long drone on post is about is, how bad can things be at IS if they just keep on keeping on with their move to midstock? I have read all the suppositions from others here but surely Getty/IS must have some kind of marketing research done that makes them think the move to midstock is good.
I am sure someone here will enlighten me, cuz I am too stoopid to see their (IS) logic. Why eff up a good thing?
---------------------------------------------- This is the $64 dollar question. Why are they doing what they are? We can only guess. Logically it seems running their business this way produces the biggest profit or they would not do it. Obviously this path has medium and long term consequences if they go too far, which its seems to me they have. Another possibility is the debt they took on last fall is crushing the company and they need to generate any cash flow they can now to stave off bankruptcy regardless of long term consequences. An alternative is that they are trying to boost cashflow on the balance sheet getting Getty and/or Istock ready for a sale. There is also the J. Klein cannibalism theory, if somebody is going to cannibalize your business it might as well be you. Say Getty has concluded that the future of low end micro is subscription based not pay per download, so to avoid shutterstock from eating their business they will eat it first. So they set up Thinkstock with a two year plan to migrate most istock content there. At the same time, Istock is elevated in the Getty portfolio to midstock as a brand, but its hollowed out as its only vetta and agency. Another alternative is good old hubris. Istock has been amazingly successful despite itself. They got some things right early on and rode the wave for many years in spite of failing again and again at communicating effectively with contributors and buyers and rolling out bug filled features. Maybe they think that since they got it right in the past despite their poor execution and many contributor complaints, that this time they are right again because everyone is telling them they are wrong. Another is they really are just crazy.
434
« on: May 02, 2011, 14:34 »
As a recent independent diamond, my numbers are not great, but my non-istock income jumped from 18% to 29% of total micro income.
435
« on: May 02, 2011, 11:54 »
Zoonar now also offers "Mauritius Images - Best Price Stock" as partner option...
Talk about a niche business! Thanks for the input. I've added them to the list.
436
« on: April 29, 2011, 17:30 »
437
« on: April 29, 2011, 17:28 »
Dear 123RF Contributors:
At the moment, unless we're notified otherwise, your portfolio will be sold via our API Partner channels.
However, you may now opt out of 123RF API Partner sales if you wish to. Please email us at [email protected] and give us your 123RF.com USERID. You should email us from the email address that you use to register your account at 123RF.com. Please use this in your message title : "API Partner Sales Opt Out".
Please kindly note that at this time, you CANNOT choose to opt from specific partners. It's either ALL or NONE AT ALL.
We will implement this feature on the site at a later date to give you more control over your image distribution.
Thank you.
Alex.
--------------------------------- Cool! Thanks much!
438
« on: April 29, 2011, 15:27 »
Thanks for the input Newsfocus1 & luissantos84. I've added both Pond5 andInmagine.com to 123RF's list.
439
« on: April 29, 2011, 15:25 »
Nice work.
I didn't see if someone answered, but Shutterstock does not partner images to BigStock. It's a fully owned division. People can Opt. in, via "the bridge" or choose not to, but we can also upload to BigStock and then have the same thing. Images aren't in a partner program like the normal way the term is used.
Interesting list and hopefully it will grow as new partners are discovered.
-------------------------------------------- Agreed not a partner program, but still think they should be on the list for completeness sake. Maybe change the name of this thread to "a list of places your images could show up without having uploaded them there directly."
440
« on: April 29, 2011, 15:13 »
Thanks for sharing this.
Are you able to display the consolidated data as a chart rather than geographically? I don't feel like I can draw any conclusions by examining the data as is.
I know one of the theories you have is there is a regional trend to the rejections. Maybe you could consolidate the data by region in a chart?
441
« on: April 28, 2011, 10:57 »
I read this article earlier today and immediately thought of all the talk here regarding a class-action suit against iStock. It sounds like the contributors have been cut off at the knees. Please correct me if my interpretation is incorrect.
----------------------------- Wondered the same thing myself. There are lots of variables between the case the court ruled on and what any potential case would be against Istock. I don't know if the differences are significant to escape this ruling. Of course the big difference is that a class action could be pursued in Canada since its (not yet) part of the U.S. :-)
442
« on: April 27, 2011, 12:42 »
443
« on: April 23, 2011, 20:50 »
SadStock
They used 3 words to search for the image.
-------------------------------------------- Which three words? "central", "park" and "central park"? So the search that somebody actually entered was "central, park, 'central park'"? And they had to put "central park" in quotes. I'm thinking its far more likely that somebody searched on "central park".
444
« on: April 23, 2011, 14:54 »
I looked at it a bit more and there are a few things that are confusing to me, for instance these keywords were listed for a file with only one download...
central (33%); central park (33%); park (33%)
does that mean that the person was searching on "central, central park, park" or was the search for " "central park" central park " ?
(as an aside, if I was searching for an image of central park in NYC, I'd have considered this image a spam, since I think they keywords I actually had were "central oregon" and "smith rock state park" - I guess the buyer wanted it though.)
----------------------------------------------
I think the example above is showing how Shutterstock is dividing up the best match points given to an image that has recorded a sale.
Somebody searched for "central" and "park" and purchased your image. Shutterstock then awarded .33 of a point to "central park", .33 to "central" and .33 to "park" boosting your image moderately in all three searches. If only a single term is searched rather than two, 1 point is awarded to that term and it gets a more significant boost in best match.
I have a bunch of images that have sold once and now give .33 to a bunch of nonsense terms, things that almost nobody (other than the person who purchased my image) would search on. That fact that they are being awarded at all means that they must be the search that was used to find the image.
I think you are misinterpreting the information.
I believe it is just information, Shutterstock is not awarding points to keywords. They are telling you what percentage of sales came from buyers using that particular keyword. I don't think this affects the best match in any way.
Shutterstock is just providing you with a tool to understand how buyers are searching.
steve
How do you account for a image with one sale and results attributed to 3 different words?
445
« on: April 22, 2011, 19:37 »
I looked at it a bit more and there are a few things that are confusing to me, for instance these keywords were listed for a file with only one download...
central (33%); central park (33%); park (33%)
does that mean that the person was searching on "central, central park, park" or was the search for " "central park" central park " ?
(as an aside, if I was searching for an image of central park in NYC, I'd have considered this image a spam, since I think they keywords I actually had were "central oregon" and "smith rock state park" - I guess the buyer wanted it though.)
---------------------------------------------- I think the example above is showing how SS is dividing up the best match points given to an image that has recorded a sale. Somebody searched for "central" and "park" and purchased your image. SS then awarded .33 of a point to "central park", .33 to "central" and .33 to "park" boosting your image moderately in all three searches. If only a single term is searched rather than two, 1 point is awarded to that term and it gets a more significant boost in best match. I have a bunch of images that have sold once and now give .33 to a bunch of nonsense terms, things that almost nobody (other than the person who purchased my image) would search on. That fact that they are being awarded at all means that they must be the search that was used to find the image.
446
« on: April 20, 2011, 09:29 »
I figured IS wouldn't really go to bat for me anyway as I am not exclusive, I was really wondering if it was worth me going after them myself.
---------------------------------
If the company had purchased the image through Istock, I'm sure Istock would have gone after them for the EL as its a lot of money in Istock's pocket even though you are independent. Not really going to bat for you, but outcome would have been the same :-)
450
« on: April 18, 2011, 12:06 »
well they never answered the question, so I guess Entops and the "technical glitch" are a big secret. not sure why it has to be that way. I guess istock folks haven't realized that even for little things they should just be a little more forthright if they ever want to begin gaining back community trust.
------------------------------------ One of the big advantage of the new type of trust Istock has is that it requires no effort on Istocks part, it is self implementing.
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
