High-priced prize collections, hey??  well maybe back in the dark ages. Today, browsing the GI site, well its almost impossible to find one single image, RM or RF, that the big four Micros can not match.

Well, I wasn't speaking about quality, just the perception of quality based on the brand.  But I agree with you on that one for sure.

Quote from: Mantis on June 18, 2011, 19:31

Well I'm no rocket scientist but isn't the strategy for car manufacturers to attract the broadest buyer base possible by targeting their range of cars to varying demographics?  They don't crap on the "small buyers" and just target the heavy spend ones...mostly anyhow.  But even Mercedes and BMW have price points that span the breadth of consumer spending behavior.  I can't imagine that IS would isolate themselves like this unless they choose to squeeze the juice of life out of their business and close the doors.  Just sayin.

They want the plebs to go to Thinkstock, but of course the subscription model doesn't suit everyone.
Plus many pictures in the DollarBin are actually excellent quality, just fell foul of the best match at some point. But it's not easy to find the Dollar Bin if you're a newbie.
But 'spreading your offerings to different market sectors isn't used in all industries. Some target high spend users only, some budget buyers only.
My issue is that by not telling us, the contributors, what the Plan is (probably for business reasons, as was suggested the last time I mentioned this) it's not allowing us to make medium-term plans accordingly. E.g if the Plan is to dump all lower sellers, or all work from lower selling contributors onto Thinkstock, which I suspect, I'd be shooting/submitting more for Alamy.

Yes, indeed there are products/services targeted to specific demographics and price points.  I guess I am confused a tad because isn't Getty supposed to be the "premium" high price point collection and Istock the Fords and Yugo's of the world?  I too wish I knew more about their medium term intent (even as a non) but their forum silence tells me we'll never know.  I feel for the exclusives though and Joan is a perfect example of the expected behaviors that are forthcoming (I believe, anyway).   

Well I'm no rocket scientist but isn't the strategy for car manufacturers to attract the broadest buyer base possible by targeting their range of cars to varying demographics?  They don't crap on the "small buyers" and just target the heavy spend ones...mostly anyhow.  But even Mercedes and BMW have price points that span the breadth of consumer spending behavior.  I can't imagine that IS would isolate themselves like this unless they choose to squeeze the juice of life out of their business and close the doors.  Just sayin.

Quote from: Mantis on June 18, 2011, 07:30

My TS is constant at $20 a month.  Doesn't matter that I had 1500, then 2000 and now 3000 images, still 20 bucks.  Just doesn't see legit to me.

we are talking here about StockXpert, it doesn�t go up or down at least in term of files online
 

Please let us know if you hear back from these folks.

What continues to be disturbing is the silence from Istock....almost admitting they could care less about bailing buyers. Very strange.

Wow.  At least you navigated that one, but how many others were lost is the bigger question.

While I think Yuri will take on contributors, my hunch would be that it's going to be invitation only. Top talent that can expand the range on offer. I certainly don't think he'll play by the established "rules" of the business - it's time to innovate. That said, it's anything but clear whether he has the vision to succeed. His announcement, on second look, has holes you could drive a truck through. Namely, you don't attract the best professionals on a freelance and part-time basis.

Will it be a factor of who has the best isolated tomato or apple on white?

FWIW, I just uploaded 30 images and 6 were rejected for LCV....80% acceptance on that batch.  Maybe I am stretching here, but it seems to me that they are rejecting on purpose (not for real LCV) just to send a message to contributors that "content quality" now all of a sudden matters.  However, since their inspectors are not all designer experts, we all know what's accepted and rejected has mostly nothing to do with LCV.  There is a different reason they are doing this but SS is not being transparent as to what constitutes acceptable CV in their eyes. 

Quote from: Perry on June 16, 2011, 08:05

Sorry to say, but I think rejection was justified...

He doesn't look like crying to me. he does not look depressed (He is smiling!). Can't see any signs of violence, pain or illness either... Maybe there is a tear in his eye, but the facial expression and body language looks pretty positive to me.

Have to agree. If he's crying at all, it's maybe because he's had a nice surprise.

Or cutting onions

I just went and looked at a batch of 30 images I uploaded mid May.  Some have zero views, most have 1 view and the best was 4 views.  Before they made that last tweak I got a lot of views.  My sales have tanked there from $150-160ish to $60-$75 bucks a month.  Really sucks. I am still going to keep uploading for the next time they tweak the best match in my favor

It is a very discouraging time in microstock; none of the agencies are offering happy faces.   
Rejections at Dreamstime and Shutterstock; nothing selling at BS and CC;  and the really infuriating results (for me) at iStock.  I just had three consecutive sales giving me .... 10 cents, 14 cents, and 18 cents.

Makes the Dreamstime Level Zero stuff look pretty good.   

But not if it's a collage.  For that you have to divide the sales price by the number of images in that collage to get your true RPI.  So an old 20 cent subscription for a four image collage will get you .05 cents (before taxes) per image.  Hardly fair.  Microstock seems to have a similar relationship as that of a toilet the Coriolis effect.

nope