|
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 - Mantis
5351
« on: May 30, 2011, 08:56 »
I don't know about the rest of you, but I haven't sold a single XL or above all weekend and only a couple on Friday. I don't see this "sale" having any positive affect on my downloads.
. Ditto. Nothing has sparked any obvious bumps in my sales.
5352
« on: May 29, 2011, 08:55 »
Just the right half of that mess will do it.
5354
« on: May 26, 2011, 07:16 »
Istock just created a new category....H+
5355
« on: May 22, 2011, 19:14 »
Sales for me on 123 are the same as BS. However, 123 sales were dismal compared to BigStock until I went in and put 10 percent of my port into FAVES. If you haven't done this you should. I saw decent ramp up in sales, something like 25%.
5% 
Is it 5%? My mistake. Either way it helps to some extent, more so with larger ports. I have about 2500 images.
5356
« on: May 22, 2011, 19:04 »
This sounds completely suspicious to me. Being less than transparent simply in my mind means my risk of image abuse goes up. So if I want to make more money with 123 I have to unzip my fly and hope I don't get bit by a mosquito called an API partner.
5357
« on: May 22, 2011, 18:46 »
Sales for me on 123 are the same as BS. However, 123 sales were dismal compared to BigStock until I went in and put 10 percent of my port into FAVES. If you haven't done this you should. I saw decent ramp up in sales, something like 25%.
5358
« on: May 22, 2011, 07:43 »
I only sold 5 photos with istock on Friday, absolutely abysmal compared to the good old days.
Same here. ^ M-F! Could be a normal hiccup but who knows. This coming week may be slow due to Memorial weekend, so I expect the same.
5359
« on: May 22, 2011, 07:39 »
Somehow I always liked 123RF, first of all because they don't have categories, second because of a high acceptance rate, and third because of decent sales.
Only once I had to write to support to ask for a re-review.
Just out of curiosity what do you consider "decent sales"?
5360
« on: May 21, 2011, 08:48 »
and I think it is more a question about trust - they want us to trust? Nearly impossible!
This is what has completely been lost for me. I don't trust IS one iota. On TS I have an ever growing port and decreasing sales, especially the last posting of earnings. I simply think that they don't have a reliable data control system and that they could care less whether it's giving contributors complete accuracy or not.....unless it's not in their favor, of course.
5361
« on: May 20, 2011, 20:28 »
I just found out about 30 minutes ago that the world was supposed to end on May 21st... tomorrow. Dang, I thought I had at least another year and a half to go. Oh well.
In case its true.. nice meeting all of you here.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-05-12/local/29554018_1_mta-spokesman-kevin-ortiz-doomsday-ad-blitz
Edit: The sad part is I just finished mowing the Yard. Maybe I should have waited.
HAHAHA....I just finished mowing the lawn too. Painters are coming tomorrow, guess I should cancel.
5362
« on: May 20, 2011, 16:54 »
Funny. I saw on IS where the a thread about this was closed probably for the purpose of minimizing the bad image (no pun intended) Istock gets from these peanut commissions.
5363
« on: May 19, 2011, 17:43 »
They may be using views as a 'most downloaded' metric.
5364
« on: May 18, 2011, 19:06 »
I dont agree with most of the posts on this thread, I really think that everybody just wanna stick a finger in and know more and more.. looks like a bunch of old ladies on the window all day
I havent comment this topic because I had nothing to "help/say" I believe that other that are willing to JUST know more should go out and have a drink 
Then I guess the OP shouldn't have posted, right? Everything has a root cause and the root cause of every post here has evolved from the OP posting this topic in the first place.
5365
« on: May 18, 2011, 07:52 »
There's gotta be more to this. Period. We are hearing one side, and perhaps, one selective piece of one side, and not the other. I do feel for the guy....2800 images is a lot, especially if they were sellers.
5366
« on: May 14, 2011, 07:29 »
Isn't the RF model part of the problem? Buyers who have been buying RF for years have built up their own personal stock library, which they can use again and again. If they're smart, they'll have keyworded and catalogued them according to their own needs and workflow. In many cases, they don't really have need to buy new images, they can repurpose old ones, swapping details around between photos etc.
I don't think many buyers, especially large companies, are this organized.
For my company, I'd say that organization is somewhere n the middle. However, we are a heavily driven "branding through graphics" company and spend a crap load on pictures. Their philosophy is "fresh and new trending" and they don't regurgitate images. If they can't find the "specificity" of an image that meets their needs from RF or RM they hire a photo agency. I've done work for them too, albeit last minute, 'bail me out' situations where ad deadlines are 3-days away. But overall they look for new content all of the time, meaning every month or more often. We conduct advertising and are heavy into brochures that are aligned with current color trends and architectural design. Thus, for us, we are in an ever evolving market and, generally speaking, old images (usually >12 months) are obsolete.
5367
« on: May 09, 2011, 16:04 »
I'm thinking this probably doesn't make sense unless we're promised better search placement - and of course there would be no way to verify whether we even got it.
I'm sure that if IS thought that this plan would boost their numbers and actually cut ours, they'd still be pushing it.
How can it increase istock's profits without increasing the profits for the photographers?
For now this is the way I see it. I just don't trust them.
Oh, I have no idea. I was just making the point that there's no reason to assume IS even cares if we'd benefit. Maybe they want to reduce the price spread between vetta/exclusives and the rest of us peasants so their plan to push the high-priced stuff meets less resistance. Maybe, like Buzbuzzer says, it boosts the short term at the expense of the long term. I would just look at anything they offer contributors right now with the highest degree of suspicion.
5368
« on: May 09, 2011, 07:16 »
The deal for video and vector was part of the incentive to get contributors to opt in to Vetta. There is no such deal for photographers. Right now they won't even give us a date for when they'll announce the photo targets.
Honestly, I don't see how they could leave the targets the same for photographers. Downloads seem to be in steep decline there for many, many people.
Very true but they will likely leave them the same so we all take another pay cut...that's simply been their M.O. for nearly a year.
I'm still worried that they'll move some of the levels up.
I'd guess that they'll leave the top tiers the same but those of us down the bottom might get another kick in the "donkey".
Well, if it went that way it'd be two kicks from that donkey. Meeting current 2010 RC levels will be tough for a lot of people because their images are buried in the search. That equals less credits spent on your work (less doe). So for them to raise the RC levels based on reduced credit spend overall would be a slap in the face...again and a kick in the bean sack to boot (for us men, anyhow:))
5369
« on: May 08, 2011, 17:20 »
The deal for video and vector was part of the incentive to get contributors to opt in to Vetta. There is no such deal for photographers. Right now they won't even give us a date for when they'll announce the photo targets.
Honestly, I don't see how they could leave the targets the same for photographers. Downloads seem to be in steep decline there for many, many people.
Very true but they will likely leave them the same so we all take another pay cut...that's simply been their M.O. for nearly a year.
5370
« on: May 08, 2011, 12:22 »
I haven't left yet but I haven't and don't expect to hear anything from iStock about terminating my exclusivity.
When they didn't contact me to ask about the fraud conference call even though I think there were many more "votes" for me than for some of the people who participated it was clear to me that I must have p*(#@d off a lot of people at HQ.
I think as long as they keep the visible exclusives - Lise, Sean, et al. - they'll not sweat loosing the rest of us.
Sorry they may think about you in that way, Joan. I can honestly say that I personally appreciated your critique forum feedback on some of my tougher images, especially my composites. Time will certainly tell a compelling story over at Istock. I'm still making enough to keep uploading there but that is softening a bit more each day it seems. There is a thing called the law of diminishing returns and many are almost there it seems.
5371
« on: May 08, 2011, 10:27 »
Since you are on the major sites already, I think the quickest way to increase your income would be to try and figure out how to create more salable stock. Or a way to create stock that Shutterstock accepts... Which is probably the same thing as more saleable stock.
That said, if you really want more sites you could check out yaymicro, deposit photos and PantherMedia
Took the words right out of my mouth. Figure out the "why's" and "what's" before you load to other sites. Why=Why aint my stuff sellin? Then "what do I need to do to close that gap"...is it key wording, content, composition, lighting, etc. Step back and look at your work...then look at other hot ports that are similar in content and compare...what's different? Many ports are awesome because the person is excellent in Photoshop, while others are good because they have PS skills and broad photo and studio skills. The latter combo is quite powerful.
5372
« on: May 08, 2011, 10:18 »
Just out of curiosity, did iStock contact any of those dropping the crown for a debriefing?
I remember once on here Lobo (as Pieman) saying that he regularly monitored those leaving exclusivity.
I'd have thought that if they were interested in maintaining the exclusivity program (tbh, I'm surprised they haven't just dropped it), they should get feedback on why people are leaving the program.
^ This would be interesting to hear feedback. It could infer, depending on how one answers, that they are leaning to eliminating exclusivity. By taking (and creating) the first step for nons with their version of a plus program means they probably make more revenue per credit that way...less with exclusives...so why not dump them or get rid of the lions share of high paid exclusives? I mean, look at Joan leaving. Did they chat with her? She's a big player over there. What would happen if Sean left? Would they say "don't let the door hit you in the ass?" or beg him not to leave? This would, in my opinion, be a signal of their near future intentions.
5373
« on: May 07, 2011, 07:39 »
The behavior of my income is like what many of you report; Shutterstock $$ has gone up considerably and so has Dreamstime. If the trend for this month at IS continues I will be 50% down in income, and I'm not talking $1 to 50 cents either. And I am also not talking 2 grand to 1 grand, but somewhere in between. So the income drop, to me, is significant...hundreds less per month.
5374
« on: May 07, 2011, 07:36 »
Kelly's answer:
Please concentrate on which of all your files will work as PNGs. That's exciting news, and we'll be the first agency to have them. And hopefully enjoy the bump in sales these articles (usually) give us.[/i]
Ah. OK. If they're keen to be the 'first agency to have them', I won't let them have them. I'll wait until Jon Oringer wants them thanks.
Good idea. In Jon we trust (in Kelly we distrust).
^ I was going to post something about trust but this pretty much sums it up for me.
5375
« on: May 05, 2011, 19:58 »
I'm astonished that people are even considering this, especially with a 6-month lock! A new round of koolaid must have been passed out.
I wouldn't touch that offer with a 12-inch turd, especially with the way they have lied, misled and cheated their contributors out of hard earned and well deserved commissions.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
