|
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 - spike
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26
526
« on: March 04, 2014, 16:29 »
Sean is on them, hunting their twitter feed for stocksy customers 
https://twitter.com/iStock/status/440876736956219393
I don't want to offend anyone, but I probably will. This is just pathetic, regardless of how much I don't like iStock. Or maybe I'm just conservative and have an outdated view on professionalism, and this is how you do marketing in the modern times. In any case, I would never spam like this. Go ahead, downvote.
528
« on: March 04, 2014, 12:03 »
How many hours a week do you spend on Microtock?
Maximum: 140
What? That's like 20hr/day.
Did you exclude obviously illogical outliers from the statistics?
529
« on: March 04, 2014, 11:50 »
Today I actually had two SOD's for 80$ each, and both illustrations are so DUMB that I have a feeling it's a scam.  Edit: And a couple of more SOD's, but in the one-digit range. Weird, but I like it.
530
« on: March 03, 2014, 13:13 »
And if it's indeed "guilty until proven innocent", than this makes it even more interesting.
If I want to have a competitor or someone's account terminated, I just have to pay 2599$ and download their whole portfolio. Good luck to them proving that I'm psychotic.
EDIT: Potentially, even less than that, maybe they block the account that I'm downloading from after one month, so I effectively shut down a contributor for 250$.
531
« on: March 03, 2014, 13:09 »
So it seems like the negative what-if scenarios are very fashionable here lately...
However yes, it is illegal - see TOS, Chapter 8.e:
http://submit.shutterstock.com/terms/
Prepare to convince them that your psychotic friend is not actually your partner in crime.
Shouldn't they be the ones proving that this person is really a "partner in crime", rather than a contributor proving that the person (who he knows nothing about maybe) is psychotic? Innocent until proven guilty, no?
532
« on: March 03, 2014, 12:34 »
Let's say you have 9125 images online.
Somebody registers and buys a 12 month subscription plan for 2599$. With it, he can buy 25*365 = 9125 images. And let's say that person is your psychotic rival who wants to copy your style, so downloads ONLY your images, and every each one of them.
You will earn, if you're on the highest tier, 9125*0.38$ = 3467$.
Overall, you earned 865$ more than your psychotic friend spent.
It's very easy to strike a deal with someone to download only your images and end up in a net plus. Is it against SS's TOS to do something like this? The person downloading only your images could be a genuine psycho who really wants to have all your images, and I don't think that's either illegal or against the ToS. A person can choose to download whatever he or she wishes.
533
« on: March 03, 2014, 11:27 »
Would you really lose that much? I'm thinking most people wouldn't lose more than 10% of their total income. My assumption for worst case scenario is that subs are about 50% of SS earnings and SS is about 50% of total earnings. The difference between $.25 and $.38 would end up costing you around 10%. Not that 10% is a small number though. That would be like losing a solid earning agency.
I could be wrong though. If you are losing more, feel free to share. My numbers only came out to about 2-3% and like I pointed out before it was less than what they took when they modified the affiliate program which was closer to 5% total income.
In the opening post, I've written: Also, all your OD's fall to the lowest price tier.
534
« on: March 03, 2014, 09:55 »
So, a quick update.
I'm thrilled about PD - in three days of March, I have already earned as much as it would take me a month on BigStock.
CanStock, on the other hand, did not produce such a great result, but it's still better than BS.
In conclusion, I'm really glad that I've made this jump and I hope the results remain consistent over a larger period of time!
535
« on: March 02, 2014, 09:39 »
Consider the difference between asking "are you concerned you daughter might be killed in a school shooting" and "just for fun, let's talk about what you'd do if you daughter was killed in a school shooting"
Yep, this is probably true. English is not my first language, so sometimes I fail to evaluate how things will sound to native speakers. "Just for fun" is an expression I know to be used in hypothetical scenarios, so I used it, didn't think it alone would cause a response like this.
536
« on: March 02, 2014, 09:36 »
What you are suggesting isn't a fact so most of us choose not to entertain your doomsday speculation.
There are enough everyday things that need my attention much more than somebody else's paranoia.
True, it's not a fact, but it could happen. I mean, in business, anything can happen, and I wouldn't count this hypothesis as super-unlikely, almost impossible. Maybe it is, I don't know, I'm not the CEO of SS, but it's a hypothesis worth exploring because it allows us to determine if we base our decisions upon principles or economic factors. Because I feel that many people feel self-righteous when they discard a low-earning agency, being all smug and full of integrity, but I'm not so sure they would discard a best-earner which would do the same. This is not paranoia, this is just realistic thinking about our priorities. And why people block or downvote is still beyond me - if you don't like what I'm saying, talk to me, be constructive, defeat my arguments. If you just "don't like what I'm saying", that's not really a good reason (at least in my world) for a downvote.
537
« on: March 02, 2014, 09:25 »
I'm much more interested in a constructive debate about this "issue", rather than name-calling/ad hominems or low effort jokes.
538
« on: March 02, 2014, 09:15 »
spike, you don't understand why most of the people here don't like your topic?
Because you think there is fun in it! When you make a living in microstock, such kind of thoughts are not fun at all!
Because this is another negative thing these days! Why should we think about it? I don't want to think every day about: what if I die tomorrow? what if I get ill......
Don't you ever heard about the power of the positive thinking? Let's think about good things!
SS is doing great and may be they will decide to put another nail in the coffin of their rivals with a rise of the contributors earnings!
Based upon what I know about positivism, there are two kinds: good and bad positivism. Bad positivism is when you ignore the negative facts that you need to deal with in your life and focus only on the positives. Good positivism is a solution orientated mindset - look for solutions to problems, focus on actions that you can take in response to negative facts or situations. Be actively on the lookout for real opportunities so that you will notice them. Realistically assess what is and what isn't under your control. People who focus only on the positives live in their little bubble of delusion, and not in reality. I'm not one of those people and I can see you're not like one of "mine" people. To be frank, I'm really surprised by the fact that such a large proportion of people can't or don't want to think about possible negative situations which might (or not) occur.
539
« on: March 02, 2014, 09:05 »
Whats the point of worrying about something that theres no sign of its happening isn't there enough doom and gloom on here already?
The point is to determine if we, the contributors, make our decisions based on priciples or economic arguments. When the deposit-shotshop deal came out and the contributors were screwed, many of us deactivated our portfolio. We were very noisy in protesting, mentioning principles and how WRONG this is. And that we don't want to be a part of this, if we are treated in that way. We were firm in this! So ok. If it's like that, it should be the same with SS, no? Principles are principles, regardless of the agency. If they're not, they're not principles. And I'm ok with that. But I'm not ok with the delusion that one has some principles, when the only time he/she exercises those principles is with an agency which earns less than 5% of the monthly total. That was the point of the topic.
540
« on: March 01, 2014, 14:29 »
Let's just imagine, for fun's sake, that the thing described in the subject happens. Also, all your OD's fall to the lowest price tier.
Would you quit?
I know a lot of contributors who report that around 70% of their earnings are from shutterstock. It's easy to have integrity when a small agency screws you over. If they account for 3% of your income, who cares, you have principles!
Is it the same story when the best earner does it?
EDIT: I don't understand why the downvotes. Is it wrong to ask a question like this? Some things I'll never understand.
541
« on: March 01, 2014, 14:23 »
I don't know how many of you use TripAdvisor, but it seems like we want a type of TripAdvisor site for stock agencies (and possibly other businesses too). That isn't as easy as one might like - fighting off fake entries for example - but it's a great way for people to see what hotels/restaurants stock agencies/services are like.
You can sort things by date so that old/bad behavior can be over time ameliorated by improvements, but history is never erased (unlike the BBB and Angie's List)
Nope. Something similar to a wiki would be a better idea, I think. With obligatory moderation from someone before any edits. Also, we can get in touch with agencies who treat contributors fairly and "certify them". I know there has been talk about this before, and it's probably a good idea.
542
« on: March 01, 2014, 08:57 »
Almost BME (2nd place), even without one EL on any of the sites! In comparison, on my BME I had a big sale on Alamy, video sales on P5 and a single download on SS worth multiple EL's. Still, I'm waiting for the PP results from iStock and, while unlikely, it is possible that Feb becomes the BME. This is my earnings breakdown:  Shutterstock is dominating everyone else with around 73% of earnings, and it will probably drop to around 68 after PP. During this month, I've dropped BigStock and DP and registered on both PD and CS. Didn't include them in the results as my portfolio is not up yet (although I already have sales). I have a feeling that March will be an interesting month: 2 new agencies, some new concepts I've been working on during Feb (which I hope will sell really well) and will continue in March. In conclusion, I'm very happy, I just wish that the breakdown by agency would be more spread out. It probably could be if I went through the hassle of uploading everything to DT and IS, but I'm working on new content and have no time to go through their complicated upload processes.
543
« on: February 27, 2014, 11:43 »
Good both for contributors (more downloads on overlooked images) and buyers (underused content).
544
« on: February 27, 2014, 05:09 »
It started. Currently, everything until Jan 12th has been processed for me
545
« on: February 26, 2014, 15:14 »
Where do you get this weekly trend report, I'd like to sign up?
(I don't know the answer to your question, I only know my illustrations sell better than my photos. It's not because I'm a crappy photographer though; I'm a crappy illustrator as well. But I don't think you asked for personal opinions, but straight facts.)
546
« on: February 25, 2014, 03:29 »
What a shame there isn't someone on the inside who's seen the books willing to level with contributors to get this straightened out - I don't see legal action as a practical option (long time; large expense and Getty has a pile of lawyers who could stop harassing customers and turn to contributors instead). Essentially, what you're saying is: even if they're doing something illegal, we can't do anything about it. I have a tendency not to believe that.
547
« on: February 24, 2014, 13:50 »
I'm wondering if a petition of sorts would help to get our message across to DP as individuals are not getting responses or action.
I believe they are already (very) aware of the issue. And even if they weren't it doesn't matter. "Plan of action" should be: 1) Determine if this what they're doing is illegal (reselling images bought through subscription plan) 2) IF YES: Sue them (as a collective) 2) IF NO: a) accept this as a fact and just continue contributing to them (this is personal choice, of course) b) deactivate your portfolio and inform as many people (through twitter, facebook, blogs) about the business practice they are using
548
« on: February 24, 2014, 13:22 »
Dropped BS and DP.
Replaced them with PD and CS. I give them 3 months.
549
« on: February 23, 2014, 07:31 »
Lol, this is so much worse than iStock, in my opinion.
I would be really surprised if a mass exodus doesn't start happening soon. We just need to spread the word.
550
« on: February 20, 2014, 16:31 »
Wow, sounds like you really have some skin in this app. You tale as if someone hijacks your account it's really not that big a deal. Bull. Talk to Luis. He just went through some similar to this and had a crap of a time getting his account back and the money they stole. I am with Bunhill and Luis, NO THANK YOU.
I'd also like to hear this story!
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
