|
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 - RT
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 77
451
« on: May 07, 2011, 03:30 »
Been doing and testing a few of the agencies in the low tier and I am amazed with the quality, the hi-tech and layouts of some of them and frankly one wonders WHY they are in the low-tier in the first place.
Because their marketing campaign is based on the theory of "if we build it they will come". Todays buyers, designers and with the latest tools in PS, etc, prefer to isolate and crop pics thermselves and they do a lot better job and quicker then any photographer, its their job.
I know you've got a downer about isolated things but actually the statistics show that isolated subjects are the back bone of the microstock industry, and despite what you think 'todays buyers & designers' most likely haven't got a clue how to isolate subjects themselves, and I've seen many many hashed attempts to isolate something done by so called 'designers', anybody with a laptop can set up as a website builder and hey presto overnight they've suddenly become a designer! Examine any of the top microstockers with a varied portfolio of isolated and non-isolated subjects and you'll find the isolated far out sell the others. Your niche might be the oil industry but compared to what sells in vast quantity on microstock sites your niche is a tiny fraction, they promote what sells the most.
452
« on: May 05, 2011, 05:50 »
I wouldn't have thought this was allowed?
Why? They're clearly two different photos, same theme but that's not a problem.
453
« on: May 04, 2011, 17:59 »
One approach is to ask what's wrong with the images, and the other might be for Getty to wonder what was amiss with their marketing or reach that they didn't find buyers for images that they chose as stock worthy during the editing process.
It'll more than likely be 'what's wrong with their keywording' which normally sucks big time.
454
« on: May 04, 2011, 17:20 »
Keep up RT! You're not selling images you're selling licenses to use them and the terms of said licenses are different.
Haha ... were all entitled to a Freudian slip every now and again. What I meant was up until now that has never happened within the same agency. If PL are 'image exclusive' how come you have your microstock portfolio with them?
Because the distributor negotiated a deal with them, as I've said many a time before the days of 'image exclusive' in Macro agencies are long gone. You know my niche images, enter the keyword there and you'll see my shots on page 1.
455
« on: May 04, 2011, 17:19 »
. Double post...
456
« on: May 04, 2011, 17:05 »
I find these two parts of the article a joke: While ASMP is recommending that Getty contributors find alternate means of distribution, APA says it has hired a law firm that specializes in copyright law and litigation "to help us develop a response" to the Getty contract changes.
They've hired a copyright lawyer! Why it's nothing to do with copyright, it's a contract lawyer they want. "I see this as a strategic move on Getty's part to cull out their contributors," to focus on hose who actively produce and those who are willing to go along with Getty's marketing strategy, Mopsik says. But he hardly faults the agency, adding, "If images haven't sold in 36 months, what would you do?" So 'Mopsik' decides to end the article by siding with Getty, nice bit of back peddling  Did he use to work for the failed SAA by any chance?
457
« on: May 04, 2011, 13:40 »
What will make things interesting is that some people have their microstock portfolio on sale via Photolibrary, myself included, which in short means that under the same Getty umbrella they'll be selling the same images at different price points, if anybody else is in this situation have you heard anything from the distributor regarding this?
458
« on: May 02, 2011, 04:44 »
Shutterstock are great in what they do, but for me they still have the lowest RPD compared to iS, Fotolia & Dreamstime which as an independant is the one and only thing that matters. Easy upload, good editing tools and everything else that Shutterstock do so well is fine but when it comes to the bottom line it's money that counts.
To go exclusive there would see me out of business.
459
« on: May 02, 2011, 04:39 »
What else can they do when their agent is making it so hard for buyers to find their images?
It doesn't help when their agent has a featured lightbox on the landing of a well known common industry term but then doesn't include that term in their CV! iStockphoto latest lightbox 'Blank slate', but of course 'blank slate' isn't known to the iStockphoto CV I would really hate to be a regular buyer trying to find things there.
460
« on: April 28, 2011, 12:02 »
If you've got to the bit where you need to tick the boxes and then 'electronically' sign it but the area to sign doesn't show up then just wait a bit, same thing happened to me I kept checking I'd ticked all the right boxes and then all of a sudden the signature box appeared! I guess it takes a while to load but doesn't show a loading icon or something like that.
461
« on: April 27, 2011, 14:43 »
Good note RT. Can't remember how to leave a note - do you have to put into description field and remove it upon approval?
Yes - The trick is remembering to remove the note afterwards 
462
« on: April 27, 2011, 04:20 »
In the event that I may ever upload to Istock again - won't they bust me for this ? Haha quite possibly not an issue.
Leave a note for the inspector along the lines of: "New camera exif date wrong, date on model release correct" I've left similar notes when sending in composite images using models and never had a problem.
463
« on: April 27, 2011, 04:15 »
I wonder if the designers had to bite themselves when deciding where to put the video output!
464
« on: April 26, 2011, 01:07 »
Just to set the record straight, Yes you can upload a photo of a LV, Gucci or whatever brand named bag or any other object and sell it under an editorial license without any fear of comeback. If the buyer chooses to ignore the license terms and use it in an advert or other commercial usage that's down to them not the contributor.
465
« on: April 16, 2011, 18:26 »
I think it is always important for the upper level folks to hear from the lower level folks. There is no harm in doing this.
I have had numerous positions in management and it is true that I never really knew what was going on down at the retail employee level.
I always appreciated hearing directly from those employees rather than the overly filtered reports from lower and middle management who only have the interest of covering their asses and recieving their quarterly bonuses in mind.
So you appreciated and thought it important to hear from the lower level folks but having done so you had no idea what was happening!! Maybe you could take over from KT 
466
« on: April 16, 2011, 06:07 »
......but without touching on the myriad problems at present, I will simply highlight one - failure to pay contributors what they are owed.
Umm...they do pay contributors what they are owed, but assuming you're referring to the clawbacks from the credit card fraud instances we are not entitled to be paid for fraudulent transactions. I thank you for your time and look forward to the swift handling of these matters in lieu of what we contributors have been talking about - seeking out legal counsel and looking into a class-action lawsuit, based on the findings of an independent third-party audit.
And you want to sue them for what exactly, acting within the law and the contract you signed with them! Good luck with that. In essence, we believe it is only right and fair that the money taken from us by iStockphoto LP for these fraudulent sales should be returned to us immediately. This in no way addresses the potential losses incurred by the artist resulting from fewer sales over the life of the photo (because of its black market distribution), but this solution would go far toward reassuring contributors that iStock recognizes their culpability in not protecting our intellectual property, as an agent should do.
So you're saying that iStockphoto has benefitted from these fraudulent transactions - I hope you don't sign your name to this letter, or if you do I presume you can prove your statement because you are accusing them of an illegal act. You like many of us are quite rightly very angry about the whole fraud thing, and this letter shows your anger. But your letter will be read by H+F and then thrown in the bin, they're a business and as annoying as it is you need to learn to understand that and forget your emotions. You also need to learn what exactly happened and what you're entitled to ask for because this letter shows you don't. The best advice you can have is to get over it and move on.
467
« on: April 15, 2011, 18:02 »
Only yesterday I was assessing how well my newest 100 images (uploaded over the last 3 months) had sold so far on Fotolia and others. The results were extraordinary;
Fotolia - 6 sales
Istock - 30 sales
Shutterstock - 283 sales
It appears that new images on Fotolia are emerging so far down the best match that they're unlikely ever to be seen by buyers. It's a pity because new images often used to do very well on Fotolia. Right now it hardly seems worth uploading to them.
That pretty much echoes my recent experience on Fotolia, out of my last 200 uploads only 30 have sold. I don't know what's happened there but speaking to a few of the top sellers in microstock we are all experiencing more or less the same thing.
468
« on: April 07, 2011, 13:14 »
I received an interesting email this morning from Jesse Estes and he said I could share it here:
"Heya Travis,
I noticed some traffic coming from a microstock forum this morning and noticed that you had posted the whois for the loser website. Whoever that guy is used my old whois info and registered the domain.
I have nothing to do with that website at all, and I'm in the process of removing my name from the domain through ICANN. I would appreciate it if you would not post my name out there as being behind this stupid mess... Whoever it is, also doesn't like me either.
regards,
--jesse"
I really hope this is true. Jesse sounds like a nice guy, so don't send any hate his way.
Could be true, it appears he's not well liked here : http://marcadamuslies.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/too-stupid-to-create-your-own-images-just-copy-a-marc-adamus-image/the blog is I believe somehow connected to the blog that posted about you. There are some very sad people in the internet world!
469
« on: April 06, 2011, 11:37 »
Double agreed, that person who runs that blog seems a little disturbed.
Just sent you a PM
470
« on: April 05, 2011, 17:38 »
Add me to the list of people who sales on Fotolia have plummeted recently, my sales last month were lower than the same month last year and Fotolia was the only site where that happened - the busiest month of the year, great timing thanks Fotolia.
Edited to add ^ - My rank has dropped to the 300's
471
« on: April 05, 2011, 16:54 »
There's lots of sites that are easier to upload to, pay a higher commission, have better communications with contributors and buyers, have a more stable website with less bugs and don't keep coming up with nasty surprises.
Everything but....sales...
+1 I agree with what you say about the other sites but pure and simply I (and most other people) do this for the money, and those other sites don't produce the same revenue that iStock does.
472
« on: March 31, 2011, 17:12 »
I highly doubt they're actually going to block anyone's content from being viewed. Why would they do that? It wouldn't benefit anyone.
I doubt they'd deliberately do it also, however you're assuming that they know what's happening with their website which based on recent events is not something I'm very confident about.
473
« on: March 31, 2011, 11:12 »
474
« on: March 31, 2011, 11:10 »
Hey, at least you didn't invoke Godwin's Law and compare him to Hitler 
Hitler was intelligent, everytime I read something that Kelly Thompson has said it makes me think the exact opposite and compare him to George W Bush.
475
« on: March 31, 2011, 11:04 »
The question is....... do I still upload the same files to both Shutterstock and BS like I always did.
No it specifically told you not to, at least it did for me when I enrolled.
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 77
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
