|
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 - OhGoAway!
51
« on: March 14, 2011, 09:35 »
52
« on: March 14, 2011, 08:45 »
What other conclusion could the five possibly return with, other than "Things will get better"? Could they possibly get worse? iStock wouldn't initiate this conversation unless they had some type of action plan to show off to them - whether its feasible, whether it even goes forward, can't possibly be known by the 5 selected. All they can possibly do is say, "What they have planned will help. Things will get better."
And that puts us no further forward than hearing Andrew say, "We're on it. Believe me, please, we don't like this any more than you do." Personally I trust Andrew a lot -- it's just that the crap they give him to feed to us stinks. But it's all they give him. The Selected 5 will be in the same boat.
53
« on: March 13, 2011, 22:19 »
Really, I've been buying stuff at smaller sites with my CC, and in a couple of instances it has been rejected because "Your information differs with the information on the bank records" ...Is that so difficult to implement on Istock?
Happens to me as well, and what it does is make me remember to update my own information when I forget. I don't get angry about not being able to purchase, as much as I get annoyed at my own forgetfulness. Surely buyers would understand the change in policy, given the rampant fraud? I know I would...
54
« on: March 13, 2011, 20:30 »
No disrespect meant but the people that keep pushing to nominate stacey_newman or even pink_cotton_candy need to get their heads checked... this will turn this pointless conference call into something even more counter productive.
IS PCC even eligible? - I thought it was "no admin/inspectors/moderators" or maybe I was just wishing it to be that way. In any case, you're totally right.
Just wishful thinking/hoping, I think. Although, I don't think they can avoid doing it that way. Mods & admins have absolutely no credibility . . . inspectors, I have less issue with -- barring the perennial woo-yayers. Got no use for them.
55
« on: March 10, 2011, 20:10 »
Enough is enough. I've binned my crown for all file types and should be free at the end of March.
Join me on the dark side. 
56
« on: March 09, 2011, 21:15 »
There are cliques in the off-topic forum? Another thing i didn't know that I learned in this thread! This is kind of like watching "Jersey Shore". It's bad, but i can't help but look. Now I'm going over to istock and look for cliques...
edit- Report back from the off-topic group: How creepy. 
LOL, I know, right?!?!? It's so * perky up in there 
57
« on: March 09, 2011, 14:24 »
Yup, I'd noticed the woo-yay was looking decidedly lackluster. Lisa may be right; where are the admins & inspectors on the Feb thread with their woo-yaying? (Other than, obviously, now locked out ) Can't name names without dragging a lot of other people into it, but I saw on Facebook that a certain admin quashed a particularly pointed remark on a THIRD person's wall! Now, if you're so sensitive that you have to go round Facebook tsk-tsk-ing people, then there's something seriously wrong :/
58
« on: March 09, 2011, 13:56 »
She needs to get over herself, stat.
59
« on: March 02, 2011, 21:06 »
After waiting almost 50 days for my 30 day notice to go into effect (lol - so typical of iStock right now), I'm finally a non-exclusive. After I got finished being really angry at iStock for all their shenanigans, a disinterested look at the d/l numbers confirmed what I think I've known for a long time. These last two price increases just KILLED my portfolio. And while my portfolio is small, I've never had any problem with inconsistent sales, slow sales, or even really wild best match swings. The last 6 or 7 months though, *! How low can my download nubmers go? So... just starting to upload everywhere. Hopefully it will go well, but at this point on istock, there isn't THAT much left to lose. Sad to think that in 2007, I paid several of my mortgage payments with istock earnings . . . this morning I didn't even cover my phone bill 
60
« on: February 27, 2011, 10:30 »
I agree its hard to cover 'lyspe expenses. But here is one contributor who certainly covered them. :-)
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/lightbox/2171221/#183a83b5
But would he have from sales on TS instead? That was the whole joke about it.
I was more responding to jsnover's point that few 'lypse attendees cover their expenses through any kind of sales which I fully agree with. Just posting the link with the exception that proves the rule.
Even that example, I think, is iffy. There are locations from three different 'lypses in that lightbox -- Seattle, Nevada (whatever they called that one out there), and Austin. If you sort by downloads, the top downloaded file has more than 600 . . . by the bottom of the page, you're at around 30 downloads. I didn't check them all, but even if you give credit for 4000 downloads from that front page (which I think is more than generous), at an average return rate, I think it's STILL not guaranteed he's covered costs. $500 tickets, travel, hotels & food . . . that adds up fast.
61
« on: February 25, 2011, 19:06 »
Well, ya knows, you've got to speculate to accumulate.
So, unless you're in the clique, you have to pay $500 for a ticket.
This is the part that really bugs me. Many of the same admins and inspectors go to these events as the one before and the one before that generally on Istock's dime. Then they invite people on special assignment that they like and toss in a few randomly drawn individuals to round out the field. In my mind, these events boil down to a big party for the clique and not much more. Just look at the thread and see who's posting. Its admin, admin, admin, inspector, admin, shank, admin, inspector.
If things are running smoothly I don't care if they throw a big party, but with Calgary burning, it sure seems like a lot of fiddling to me.
Edited to add: It does feel a bit like this event is paid for in part by the royalties that Istock took from me...
And good god, what a long list of "staff" and "assignment" shooters!!! These things just piss me off more every time they do one.
62
« on: December 06, 2010, 23:21 »
It's not like they are cutting the prices and lowering commission like they did last time. They are taking a hit because of it too. Plus it's just temporary.
Not anything to get all worked up over.
So how many Vettas do you have? I don't see how giving special benefits to one group of contributors and not others (be it this program, or the "relaxation" of rules for exclusivity that was given to Agency contributors, or differing targets for different media) can ever be something to not "get all worked up over."
63
« on: September 27, 2010, 22:25 »
Look to Vetta. What's missing in who will/won't make the cut is that previously a Vetta download was still only one download. Now, it's significantly more.
Sorry guys, but in this case, size doesn't matter as much as you think. Even if you have XXXL available the sales growth and volume is in the electronic media- blogs, websites, etc.; so a file that has more RC even at it's smallest size is going to have significantly more impact.
And yet another clique-y bit of business that only certain people seem to easily get into. Maybe I'm just sour this week, but I can't even read any more of this bullshizzle.
64
« on: September 22, 2010, 07:21 »
Eh? I don't think I argued those points. My only argument (in this forum) was the courtesy extended to *fellow business people*, iStock's own suppliers, and how iStock expects them to make huge business decisions based on limited information and in a very short time frame. Although I do disagree with you on one point you made. How can you say that where iStock leads, other micros won't follow? History has shown us that iStock leads the way for great many. much of the outrage is from people who stand to lose because they have not uploaded significantly to their portfolios, or they have reached a canister level slowly over many years...and therefore have not really built their portfolio up enough to compete.
the actually percentages aside, which I agree seem unfair in some cases.....people who work harder are going to reap higher percentages.
The real issue isn't the changes. I don't like them but that's beside the point. I've bolded the portion that I think bears looking at -- and it bears looking at because we've been told this is how things will operate. I will concede that iStock can change the rules all they like (I think it's crappy business, but to each his own), but three months' time to go from almost reaching gold to being knocked back down to bronze level? That's a tad harsh . . . if this was coming down the pipe all along (as I suspect it was), then they should have broken the news last year and let everyone have time to ramp up.
okay, so first of all, I'm not trying to sell you or anyone else on the new royalty model. what makes you think I like it? I've never said I liked it. I simply disagree on the extrapolation that this (like other changes were predicted to do) spells doom for istock. it's a series of decisions, made with many variables and considerations in mind. I think that iStock are probably at least attempting to advocate on our behalf, but I also think that iStock HQ is interested in evolving, and that perhaps they are in agreement with the changes. the next move, like any move in business designed to generate an increase in revenue, is going to require some risk-taking, model changes etc., especially as contributors continue to grow their download numbers and portfolios. point = I don't believe the decisions have been made maliciously or without regard for the entire future of stock photography.
secondly, no one was promised anything after the last uproar about canister levels except that the issue was PUT ON HOLD, and for the TIME BEING all canisters would be delivered according to the original model. this was not something I remembered today myself, but instead something pointed out to me by one of the top 20 iStock diamonds with whom I spoke today at length about this issue.
to suggest that any one of us knows anything at all about the cost of doing business at iStock/Getty/H&F/SS/DT/FT etc.......is moot, because none of you know, I don't know. only those privy to that information know. we retain power insofar as we hire them to be our agent, or we don't. that's where your choices are. picketing, unions, co-ops....this isn't Norma Rae and we don't work in a canning factory or a meat plant circa 1929. don't contribute to iStock. there you go. to suggest that all other MS agencies will follow iStock's business model if you don't protest.....I don't see how anyone can say that with a straight face. it's such an absurd magnification. has anyone ever tallied how many of the dire predictions have been false? I would do that but I can't be bothered, because even if I did, someone would have a reason for it.
65
« on: September 21, 2010, 22:17 »
much of the outrage is from people who stand to lose because they have not uploaded significantly to their portfolios, or they have reached a canister level slowly over many years...and therefore have not really built their portfolio up enough to compete.
the actually percentages aside, which I agree seem unfair in some cases.....people who work harder are going to reap higher percentages.
The real issue isn't the changes. I don't like them but that's beside the point. I've bolded the portion that I think bears looking at -- and it bears looking at because we've been told this is how things will operate. I will concede that iStock can change the rules all they like (I think it's crappy business, but to each his own), but three months' time to go from almost reaching gold to being knocked back down to bronze level? That's a tad harsh . . . if this was coming down the pipe all along (as I suspect it was), then they should have broken the news last year and let everyone have time to ramp up.
66
« on: September 20, 2010, 19:41 »
Just a week here, but probably because there wasn't really a reason to do it.
You as well? Unbelievable.
Yep making a reference to this thread, I just said it was ridiculous to tell sean he wasn't up to par, at least that's the only post that Lobo deleted as far as I can tell. This is the thread: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=256872&page=1
What?? I said the same thing in the exclusive forum and haven't heard anything. Maybe because it was in the main forum, but it's still the most ridiculous claim I've heard JJ make in my (long) time on iStock.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
