|
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 - Mantis
4301
« on: January 19, 2013, 14:49 »
Competent and consistent inspections, clear and sensible acceptance criteria.
I added your input as well...good feedback.
4302
« on: January 19, 2013, 14:48 »
That's a good list +1 heart for you
Me Too, but I will comment on this.
5. Search accuracy can only be achieved when contributors stop spamming the keywords with related terms, obscure close words, tiny elements way in the background that aren't the main subject, subjective emotions, adjectives and flat out irrelevant terms.
It's as much the problem of the contributors to make the search work as it is to demand this from an agency software solution.
You can't have one without the other.
♥
Totally agree. Some aspects of an agency are the direct consequence of its contributors. So I have amended the list. WHAT BUYERS WANT 1. Content: This is broadly defined but they want a wide breadth of selection 2. Quality: Not just in terms of technical perfection, but quality in terms of alignment to their needs 3. Pricing: Consistent, fair and no surprises 4. Good licensing options 5. Search accuracy 6. Site Up-time & speed 7. UI simplicity 8. Good communication on CTQ (critical to quality) topics such as planned downtime, special promotions, price change notification with good lead-times WHAT CONTRIBUTORS WANT 1. Fair commissions 2. Consistent, fair content placement (this is probably a smoking gun) 3. Good communication from admins, especially participation in forum discussions to address issues 4. Easy, flexible payout methods 5. Continued focus on new & growing forms of revenue 6. Licensing that protect photographer 7. Aggressive copyright protection 8. Opt in for any deals outside of the normal course of daily business (another loose definition...but...just saying) 9. Consistent marketing focused on sustainability and growth. 10. Easy upload (no categories, easy model release attachment [if at all], speed, FTP & web up loader)
11. Inspection consistency with clear and sensible acceptance criteriaWHAT CONTRIBUTORS MUST DO TO SUPPORT THE SITE 1. Use proper keywords that address the main subject or message of the image (No keyword spamming)
4303
« on: January 19, 2013, 14:00 »
4304
« on: January 19, 2013, 10:32 »
We have a lawyer on the scene!? Ref:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6824549
I`m a lawyer. Let`s get to basics.
Getty and contributors never signed a contract that allows buyer to resell!
We never signed (agreed) to permit reusage and resale.
Point.
Legal action:
Joint letter to google and public media and news that the agency will be sued for damage to contributors with abrief explanation that the basic problem is not that file has been legaly sold ONCE to google but that it was available for further use despite a contract with contributor that states otherwise.
Second step: Lawsuit.
It looks to me that there is a very powerful intention that something new on the market wants microstok to derive into something else, or that a new buyer actually is destroying the whole market as we know it now.....the question is why and who....
Good capture, Stan.
4305
« on: January 19, 2013, 09:59 »
That's a good list +1 heart for you
Thank you Microbius!!
4306
« on: January 19, 2013, 09:48 »
I bet that a lot of copyright lawyers are lining up to go after this deal as infringement. Hopefully, an injunction to stop further sales to Google, is around the corner.
Boy, I hope you are right.
4307
« on: January 19, 2013, 09:47 »
WHAT CONTRIBUTORS WANT
Traffic!
I've modified #9 WHAT BUYERS WANT 1. Content: This is broadly defined but they want a wide breadth of selection 2. Quality: Not just in terms of technical perfection, but quality in terms of alignment to their needs 3. Pricing: Consistent, fair and no surprises 4. Good licensing options 5. Search accuracy 6. Site Up-time & speed 7. UI simplicity 8. Good communication on CTQ (critical to quality) topics such as planned downtime, special promotions, price change notification with good lead-times WHAT CONTRIBUTORS WANT 1. Fair commissions 2. Consistent, fair content placement (this is probably a smoking gun) 3. Good communication from admins, especially participation in forum discussions to address issues 4. Easy, flexible payout methods 5. Continued focus on new & growing forms of revenue 6. Licensing that protect photographer 7. Aggressive copyright protection 8. Opt in for any deals outside of the normal course of daily business (another loose definition...but...just saying) 9. Consistent marketing focused on sustainability and growth.
10. Easy upload (no categories, easy model release attachment [if at all], speed, FTP & web up loader) Some of these may overlap somewhat, but those are my initial thoughts. If anyone cares to elaborate please feel free.
4308
« on: January 19, 2013, 09:45 »
You are talking about SS ( if they rise the commissions to the contributors at 45-50%)
So #1 then. Thanks.
4309
« on: January 19, 2013, 08:32 »
As of today, I am an independent stock photographer and a contributor on Shutterstock.
In my application test, 9 of the 10 images I submitted were accepted - the one rejected was a building (for IP reasons). I have to admit, though, I have downsized all my images to the minimum requirement as I had heard about their "focus on focus". I had applied a few weeks ago - actually before the recent developments -, so I was ready to upload images and have them live when my exclusivity terms ran out.
I am not a brillant photographer and haven't been a star at iStock ever. Though I felt home at a place where I could learn and earn at the same time. I just found that there is not much more I can learn at the place, and the "earn" part wasn't quite nice to look at anymore as well.
My expectation is that my royalties at iStock will drop by anywhere between 60 and 80% immediately. Exclusive members not only get a higher royalty but also exclusive files are priced higher plus the option of choosing images for E+ plus Vetta & Agency (which never amounted to much for me). In exchange, my images will be forced into the partner program, I have no idea how much additional money that will make.
My income from stock was never high enough to make a living (and didn't have to) and it has taken a steep dive since fall of 2011, so I can take the risk now. I am living with a black diamond iStock exclusive, and we can't afford her going non-exclusive right now. But my independence will be a good test what to expect. I am looking forward to it. Anxious but excited. 
Congrats. And for whatever it's worth I have always found your posts (as an admin) on the IS forums over the years to be very fair. I thank you for that.
4310
« on: January 19, 2013, 08:18 »
I was thinking about the movie, "What Women Want" while reading some posts about Istock and had a hankering for writing down some thoughts for the perfect Microstock site. Let's play something called, "What Buyers & Contributors Want". Perhaps these criteria will be picked up by one of the smaller players to someday fill the shoes of defecting Istock buyers and contributors.....the start of the "PERFECT LIST" for an Istock replacement...the recipe if you will.
WHAT BUYERS WANT
1. Content: This is broadly defined but they want a wide breadth of selection
2. Quality: Not just in terms of technical perfection, but quality in terms of alignment to their needs
3. Pricing: Consistent, fair and no surprises
4. Good licensing options
5. Search accuracy
6. Site Up-time & speed
7. UI simplicity
8. Good communication on CTQ (critical to quality) topics such as planned downtime, special promotions, price change notification with good lead-times
WHAT CONTRIBUTORS WANT
1. Fair commissions
2. Consistent, fair content placement (this is probably a smoking gun)
3. Good communication from admins, especially participation in forum discussions to address issues
4. Easy, flexible payout methods
5. Continued focus on new & growing forms of revenue
6. Licensing that protect photographer
7. Aggressive copyright protection
8. Opt in for any deals outside of the normal course of daily business (another loose definition...but...just saying)
9. Consistent marketing
10. Easy upload (no categories, easy model release attachment [if at all], speed, FTP & web up loader)
Some of these may overlap somewhat, but those are my initial thoughts. If anyone cares to elaborate please feel free.
4311
« on: January 19, 2013, 08:09 »
Just ran across this from 2009 and was reflecting on the "future of the little guys" question. Also got a laugh at the same time.
"Lee Torrens says:
September 23, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Interesting thoughts. I believe that if there become fewer top agencies it will become easier for new agencies to break in. I suspect this is a factor in Jons decision to keep operating BigStock as a separate business and Gettys decision (at least so far) to keep StockXpert going."
Feb. 10th 2010 iStock closes Stockxpert
Also in the news... 2010
Getty Images introduces ThinkStockPhotos.com Getty Images recently announced a new stock photo site offering images by subscription.
ThePhotoStorage.com is Closing "Dear Member: We regret to inform..."
Shutterstock Reaches 10 Million Photos Shutterstock, the worlds largest stock subscription site, has reached 10 million stock photos online for sale.
Fotomind.com will be closing on 15th April 2010 "All your photos and personal information will be permanently..."
PS Bigstock is holding #8 position in the MSG polls for earnings at about $12 dollars a month for the best contributors in the world. Is that small enough for you?
Race, That's a good point. I haven't been able to grow my monthly income there in 5 years. Always about 75-80 bucks no matter what I do. However, the one point I might make is that if buyers by-in-large defect from Istock to SS (who owns BigStock) there may be some promotional momentum for BigStock.
4312
« on: January 19, 2013, 07:45 »
liliboas just added a comment on the shutterstock blog asking for help if she moves her portfolio. Good for her! I am surprised so many others are so quiet.
http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/former-exclusives-interested-in-joining-shutterstock?utm_source=microstock.info&utm_medium=microstock,+photos,+stock,+photography
This is such a serious issue, I am surprised how many voices are missing. And istock is stalling, no comments at all.
Maybe this is indeed their way of dissolving the exclusive program without announcing it.
eta
no comments from istock and more files moving to google. I think I really have to start deactivations. It seems nothing their admins say has a real meaning. Or it has a hidden double meaning. But I don't live my life in doublespeak.
This is a great example of a meaty portfolio. If she pulls her content THAT would be like throwing a pie into the pieman's face.
4313
« on: January 18, 2013, 18:59 »
Be prepared for mass rejections and hard work submitting to top and middle tier sites . First you'll have to figure out what kind of images they want. It's quite different from Istock and it will take some time but forget landscapes people.... and be prepared for random rejections.
I still do believe that IS inspectors are the best unfortunately.....
Good luck everyone 
I have a sneaking suspicion that SS admins will allow complete blocks of ports to be transitioned without all the inspection, at least for some of the top dawgs.
4314
« on: January 18, 2013, 18:58 »
I got a extend license sale for 27 dollars but its not showing on my balance on the main page. The .28 sales are. Do the EL totals show up after they finish for the month? I'm asking here because I never get satisfactory answers on there forum.
How do you know about a PP EL if it's not showing in your balance?
In past months the larger amounts - something like $24.10 as I recall - showed up along with the other sales. I was able to look at my graphs for the month and see the bars where the $$ were not 28 cents x number of downloads for that day. But any numbers that showed up there were also increasing my balance.
Basically that's the only way I know of. I download the CSV file and am able to know if the days are exactly 28 cents or something different. I assume there are other ways to get more than 28 cents a Dl because I already see a problem on one of my December days, but it's only like $4 and change. Maybe Istock has made an even sweeter deal. I sure as Sh*t hope not.
4315
« on: January 18, 2013, 18:26 »
Rolling them in late so we don't find those new Google royalties until later.
4316
« on: January 18, 2013, 18:04 »
4318
« on: January 18, 2013, 13:42 »
....bad for existing SS contributors.
Not bad if istock buyers move to SS as well. Hopefully that will happen.
Excellent point, sharpshot. This is why I love forum discussions. Brain dead at work right now so thinking about too much at one time 
4319
« on: January 18, 2013, 12:41 »
I also wonder what someone like sandralaise (sp) is planning to do....even though she is not exclusive. Her port is mighty nice and powerful and big. I've said this once, when images are pulled from Istock they have to be meaty to make any kind of difference. She has a lot of meat, so to speak.
4320
« on: January 18, 2013, 12:38 »
I wonder what kind of exclusives they are. High enders, large volume of other, or a mix. Bad for Istock, good for SS, bad for existing SS contributors.
4321
« on: January 17, 2013, 12:34 »
I put ''getty/google drive deal'' I think we will understand:)
It would be nice if Sean could build that into his script, providing us to just use that as our reason.
4322
« on: January 17, 2013, 10:00 »
For all non exclusives remember.....if you had any files in stockxpert those are now in thinkstock under the hemera collection. You need to go into your old StockXpert account and delete those files too because they were put into TS. You should be able to remove them from TS via StockXpert I suspect, but not sure.
4323
« on: January 16, 2013, 10:38 »
I am not supporting the Getty deal but let face it: today a "thief" can find almost any best seller with the google image search function at a reasonable size.
Here's the problem. These images aren't just being marketed to "thieves". They are being marketed to design pros as acceptable content they can legally license for FREE to use in commercial applications. These aren't thieves, they are our legitimate customers!
Exactly. Well stated Lisa. And I wonder if Getty even considered that they are shooting themselves in the foot by driving buyers away from them to google.
I suspect they are NOT shooting themselves in the foot in any way. They may have taken a hit financially short term, but in their long term plans they will a. (Try to) kill microstock and b. eliminate all the "riff-raff" (contributors not part of their elite group). Sounds like getty is right on target.
If that's what their intention is then I fully agree with you. If its otherwise, they have some pretty stupid decision makers in their ranks.
4324
« on: January 16, 2013, 10:16 »
I am not supporting the Getty deal but let face it: today a "thief" can find almost any best seller with the google image search function at a reasonable size.
Here's the problem. These images aren't just being marketed to "thieves". They are being marketed to design pros as acceptable content they can legally license for FREE to use in commercial applications. These aren't thieves, they are our legitimate customers!
Exactly. Well stated Lisa. And I wonder if Getty even considered that they are shooting themselves in the foot by driving buyers away from them to google.
4325
« on: January 16, 2013, 07:25 »
The following post is by landbysea from the iStock forum. I think this is extraordinarily well said:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=2
"I am bothered by the attempt to minimize the wrongdoing by pointing out the numbers. You are talking about Google cherry picking the best of the best of people's work. In some cases these are more than high dollar files. These are the culmination of all the knowledge, creativity and hard work that could be mustered to make a personal masterpiece picked for Vetta or Agency. And the material result of the passion that brought us to pursue a creative career. Is there any thought to the fact that you are destroying people livelihoods. We are all now between a rock and a hard place knowing that the files that Google is likely to pick are the ones we worked the hardest for. The ones with the long tail. The ones that convinced us that this effort can pay off. It's not just about 100 contributors who had their best work given away. It about thousands of others sleepless worrying that at any given moment the photos that were going to make their careers are about to be made public domain for 12 bucks. It's not just files you are selling it's peoples lives."
That is a very effective and passionate statement.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
