|
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 - anonymous
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 20
51
« on: May 11, 2011, 07:56 »
I've uploaded the majority of my port (stock) and have had nominal sales. I get paid every month. I don't get the insane rejections as sometimes with the bigger boys. 3D (so far) has not bent its contributors (or buyers) over a chair, insulted their intelligence, or acted in any way nefarious. The future may bring some of these changes, but for the present, any who have tolerated this treatment over the last year (IS) should not be bitttcchhhing about 3D's decision. I'm personally looking forward to an upstart site creating a little competition while paying me (us) fairly for my (our) work...AND have had 2 clients purchase from them, not much but a start.
Best of luck!
52
« on: April 25, 2011, 17:16 »
L plz keep us posted on future "experience" w/PIX..thinking about uploading...I'll trust your impressions...heart for you 
53
« on: April 25, 2011, 13:30 »
Haha it was probably the Shank when he used to come here. He ended up ignoring just about everybody.
...nope, it's "Admin" 
54
« on: April 16, 2011, 16:15 »
the letters would need to be written to a representing attorney, who in turn files a class-action. Whether or not it had teeth would be less relevant than the fact that a pending suit was leveled against them. If they are indeed positioning to sell their troubled site to the highest bidder, pending litigation is a HUGE turn-off to a potential buyer...
2 cents...
55
« on: April 06, 2011, 15:44 »
could be click farming...just doesn't make any sense. Like the guy stirring up PooP in here the other day...probably same guy.
56
« on: March 28, 2011, 08:07 »
They need editors with some graphic design background. I can't tell you the strange variety of images I've needed to find to produce the concepts that pop into my mind when designing. You can't predict it and shouldn't try. I also don't care about the photographer who took the shot I need so his/her sales history is irrelevant. It's the quality of the shot that matters. They should accept images of good ( "top") quality and not worry about the rest. If the bulging image catalog is a problem, start weeding out old images.
+1
57
« on: March 24, 2011, 16:41 »
so whats the difference between a guild and a union?
Stigma?
stigmata
58
« on: February 22, 2011, 11:37 »
This is not exactly a timely response I know, but I just wanted to add a little clarification to the info you have on us. We are actually The3dStudio not 3dStudio.
As was pointed out, 60% is our base royalty rate--we do pay 70% for those who join our Member Loyalty Program and agree to leave their products with us for 5 years and many of our sellers are in the MLP. We do not require the MLP sellers be exclusive with T3DS. Our affiliate program can also increase earnings.
And Matt has publicly pledged to never lower the royalty rate below 60% for anyone who is currently a seller with us. And our minimum photo price is $2.
[email protected]
AND, they payout at the end of each month with no minimum...not getting "rich" but i AM getting paid
59
« on: November 24, 2010, 17:23 »
A lot of buyers are fed up, but many of them still have credits left they have to use up, so I wouldn't be surprised to see iStock's earnings begin to drop sharply after the first of the year. Plus, many contributors are planning on leaving the site at the end of 2010 - which will decrease the size of the selection and make the competing micros that much more appealing. iStock's biggest advantage has been their huge library of exclusive content, which gave them a much better selection than the competition. They will lose that advantage over time, now that so many contributors are dropping exclusivity, and many independents are planning to stop uploading, or have stopped already. Eventually, the only unique thing about the site will be the fact that the prices are higher there than they are on any other micro. And somehow I doubt that distinction will keep the buyers coming. Eventually it has to reach the point where Getty will be undone by their own arrogance, I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.
Wishfull thinking again.
quite common here I might add.
wishful indeed and I'm doing everything within my power to see to it that it happens...also "quite common here"
Good luck...
appreciated
60
« on: November 24, 2010, 17:09 »
A lot of buyers are fed up, but many of them still have credits left they have to use up, so I wouldn't be surprised to see iStock's earnings begin to drop sharply after the first of the year. Plus, many contributors are planning on leaving the site at the end of 2010 - which will decrease the size of the selection and make the competing micros that much more appealing. iStock's biggest advantage has been their huge library of exclusive content, which gave them a much better selection than the competition. They will lose that advantage over time, now that so many contributors are dropping exclusivity, and many independents are planning to stop uploading, or have stopped already. Eventually, the only unique thing about the site will be the fact that the prices are higher there than they are on any other micro. And somehow I doubt that distinction will keep the buyers coming. Eventually it has to reach the point where Getty will be undone by their own arrogance, I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.
Wishfull thinking again.
quite common here I might add.
wishful indeed and I'm doing everything within my power to see to it that it happens...also "quite common here"
61
« on: November 16, 2010, 13:25 »
Lobo may not be anyone's favorite admin, but he's not a suit (and as far as I know, not a photographer either).
He and Bruce were in a band together, the Bittermen. Some more discussion here.
heh...i find the band name appropriate for his moderation style
62
« on: November 09, 2010, 20:24 »
Similar mixed feelings about your wonderful greasemonkey scripts - it seems a bit like enabling. There's a risk that it'll slow IS down even further in doing what they need to to get the site running well. "Oh, not to worry about breaking ........(fill in the blank)......... Sean'll write a script to work around the problem."
Yeah, I know. I'm sure I'll get bored with this new toy soon .
----------------------------
Maybe this could be a new income stream? Every time somebody installs one of your scripts Istock gives you a nickle?
completely unsustainable
63
« on: November 09, 2010, 20:10 »
What on earth is the point of joining the forums and starting a post to complain that we're all a bunch of whiners?
priceless! 
64
« on: October 26, 2010, 14:43 »
^^ I totally hear you. Please excuse my candor - sometimes I get a little ahead of myself.
Hey..if it walks like a duck......
65
« on: October 19, 2010, 08:55 »
If the buyers cannot afford the higher end prices, they still have Thinkstock (and perhaps Dollar Bin) to shop from.
heh heh...yeah...THAT's the ticket 
66
« on: October 12, 2010, 07:56 »
Question for Peter:
Is SF looking for the same type(s) of images as StockXpert accepted? Are the approvals leaning a bit more conservative or a bit more artsy? Haven't submitted app yet but would like to have some kind of idea prior to doing so.
Thx
67
« on: October 08, 2010, 08:54 »
ONCE MORE!.. when will 123RF be profissional???.. is there a way to clean the queue without rejecting massively??.. it is absurd, how can I agency act this way??
uploaded for the 1st time this year to see if the "mass rejection" button had been duct-taped over. out of aprox 50 images (10 of which are my best sellers on 123 - already accepted), 2 images approved (neither of them were the top 10). I'm done uploading there but will leave my port open as it is worth a payout every month...these guys used to be okay, don't know what happened to them. edited: all for "lighting/composition"...funny how they were good enuff the 1st time and sell extremely well for them...
68
« on: September 29, 2010, 17:48 »
as for the corporate shill BS....David, keep justifying your position....I would be too if I'd made the error in judgment I believe you have. I see "corporate shill" very clearly...if you do not understand this view point, I'm not sure what else I can say to enlighten you...the pom poms are looking very dirty and tattered... *steps off bodily fluid covered platform*...
69
« on: September 28, 2010, 09:08 »
. again, not bothering, who cares
apparently the 16 folks who have blocked you
70
« on: September 28, 2010, 07:49 »
of course there's a bias towards Vetta. that isn't new, nor is it the point. you know what, you guys have your little club for the disgruntled over here. enjoy throwing sand in each others' faces and peeing in the pool.
peeing on your pom poms
71
« on: September 28, 2010, 07:08 »
no probs here..Win7 - IE8
72
« on: September 21, 2010, 07:13 »
if you really don't like Getty and Thinkstock, start "clicking" on those ads...they'll get the bill
73
« on: September 20, 2010, 07:48 »
You don't seem to get it. Read these comments thoroughly:
hawk_eye: I was scratching my head at your constant presence in there too. I have to say, I see the importance of contributors voicing their concerns. I've been intolerant of that in the past, but I see many positives about it. despite that, there is a small contingent of really loud and offensively negative people in there that I'm personally tired of listening to.
hawk_eye: you're playing the martyr thing a little thickly. you've made your decision. I think it was the wrong one, and I'm sorry to see you go. but there aren't any violins playing either. I think you knee jerked and stuck around hoping more would follow suit.
loop: I just say that because you seem the kind of people that needs to express your opinions, in a reiterative way. Against what I have nothing, of course.
I concur with their opinions.
...ah, a new corporate shill
Yeah there's a lot of that going around.
That's one thing Getty/ IStock has got right, let the contributors scream till they can scream no more and then, and only then bring out your guys when no one can be bothered to argue any more.
Lock the threads and ban the dissenters once they've banged their heads against the wall so much they no longer have the energy to protest.
I have no problem with folks ranting (one way or the other), but I auto-dismiss anyone "bandwagoning" as a new member...it's just an existing one with a new identity 
74
« on: September 20, 2010, 07:14 »
You don't seem to get it. Read these comments thoroughly:
hawk_eye: I was scratching my head at your constant presence in there too. I have to say, I see the importance of contributors voicing their concerns. I've been intolerant of that in the past, but I see many positives about it. despite that, there is a small contingent of really loud and offensively negative people in there that I'm personally tired of listening to.
hawk_eye: you're playing the martyr thing a little thickly. you've made your decision. I think it was the wrong one, and I'm sorry to see you go. but there aren't any violins playing either. I think you knee jerked and stuck around hoping more would follow suit.
loop: I just say that because you seem the kind of people that needs to express your opinions, in a reiterative way. Against what I have nothing, of course.
I concur with their opinions.
...ah, a new corporate shill
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 20
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
