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 - Jo Ann Snover
5676
« on: January 23, 2012, 15:35 »
Well I've had my 7 out of 10 accepted at SS, time to make a big decision I suppose. To jump or not to jump.
That was quick. Like a bandaid.
Meaning you started the 30-day clock?
5677
« on: January 23, 2012, 14:50 »
With apologies to the bard:
To jump, or not to jump: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the bank balance to suffer The ebb and flow of outrageous RCs, Or to take action against a sea of troubles, And by diversifying end them?
5678
« on: January 23, 2012, 10:43 »
Good words gone bad
5679
« on: January 23, 2012, 10:34 »
I use Fetch, but you'll need to turn off passive mode transfers (PASV) for Veer to work - all the other sites are fine either way, but Veer for some reason isn't. In Fetch, it's in Preferences. It should be an option in all FTP software.
5680
« on: January 22, 2012, 17:18 »
I had to google chook! New word for today  Welcome. As you'll see from reading here, you've started at a most "interesting" time for microstock.
5681
« on: January 22, 2012, 17:07 »
I feel like the biggest sucker in the world. After 6 months spent dismantling my portfolios at SS, DT and FT, I have just gone exclusive with IS. So far, I am on track this month to outstrip my total earnings as an independent - despite the fact that SS was a far greater earner for me than IS. I thought I had landed in stock heaven! But my joy hasn't lasted long. I think it may be a fool's paradise.
I don't think I'd have done what you did at this time (I went exclusive in Aug 2008 and left June 2011) but don't waste energy beating yourself up over what's done. You need to look forward now and decide how long to stay with exclusivity. It may take them a while to cut royalty rates and do some of the other things I'm virtually certain will come. Use the time to make a plan for what next. I'm sure there's a bigger sucker out there somewhere
5682
« on: January 22, 2012, 14:23 »
Hi - you are in luck - I recently wrote a blog post on just this subject!
http://stockcube-stockcube.blogspot.com/
Best of luck, Bridget
Very helpful blog post. One part didn't correspond with my experience, however. I had DT suspend my account so that I could upload while I was waiting out my 30 days notice at iStock. I was able to have images be approved during that time, and given DT's weekly upload limits, the advantage of uploading while waiting is to be able to get as much of your portfolio on line as soon as possible. Their limits make that hard for a large port. I did this in May 2011, so perhaps things have changed since, but I did get images inspected and approved while the account was suspended.
5683
« on: January 21, 2012, 14:03 »
Does anyone else see that we as contributors are at least partly to blame for this?...
No
5684
« on: January 20, 2012, 17:29 »
There may not be a direct and obvious connection, but over the long run, csproduction's point is valid. Assuming that price and selection are at least comparable, simplicity and ease of use will prevail.
What I notice about many of the sites is that they never advance past rev 1.0. The company spends a lot of time and money to create the site, and then it's frozen for all time and never evolves or (substantially) improves. A price will be paid, eventually, for that lack of investment.
To use Canstock as an example, they've never sat on the laurels and have been innovating - both for buyers and contributors - since the site began. They had image zoom before anyone else. They had a great notion of series (contributor defined) with a collapsed display in searches so you could avoid those results with masses of similars, and so on. They started out with much higher pricing than iStock - with a notion of being fair to photographers - and photographers got 50%. They lowered prices later on (I assume trying to compete). The sales have never been there. It's a shame, but it is not a lack of investment in the site that's the problem.
5685
« on: January 20, 2012, 16:44 »
Is anyone else concerned about this sentence (emphasis added by me): We will also try our very best to maintain the levels of 50% nett commission to you for as long as possible.
Yes, me! In addition to my comment above, see here in the first thread about this proposed cut. I can't imagine what forces - other than raw greed - could be pressuring them to reduce the level of royalties they pay contributors. Have their costs gone up or some other aspect of their business changed? I'm more than sympathetic to some real business problem (and I don't consider greed on the part of a company to be a real business problem, just in case I hadn't made that clear) that might need to be addressed by contributors as well as the agency. I haven't heard any statement of a problem - just these vague words suggesting they're trying hard for us. Gee, thanks so much (NOT). Color me uncomfortable with the direction things are proceeding here.
5686
« on: January 20, 2012, 14:30 »
No correlation whatever.
I'd put Canstock in the good upload bad sales column, but otherwise agree with disorderly's summary.
PhotoDune has decent sales and a so-so upload process - it's so far away from SS's which is I think the best out there that I don't think they belong in the same bucket.
5687
« on: January 20, 2012, 14:21 »
Who is in charge of istock? Who is the captain on the bridge?
Judging by the way sales have been leaking it might as well be Francesco Schettino.
We'll know for sure when the stories of falling into the lifeboat start to surface  And so who plays the part of the infuriated Italian coast guard official telling that world-class-sleazeball to get the eff back on the ship?!
5688
« on: January 20, 2012, 14:14 »
Agree with gostwyck that today's announcement is corporate blah blah with no real meaning. @cobalt. In the iStock thread you mentioned concern over Getty editors making choices over where content goes. i think that's a real concern. I have two brothers who submitted music to Pump Audio prior to the time Getty bought it. It had done well for them. After Getty bought it things went OK for a while but recently they wondered what happened to their new submissions as they couldn't find them at Pump Audio. Contacting Getty about this they were told that Getty decided they'd be best at iStock - where they haven't sold at all. So their old stuff at Pump still sells but they can't get new stuff there. It certainly seems clear that the new regime doesn't plan to have a visible presence - and a name - in the iStock forums. They won't even put a name out there - I'd love to see a post from this he/she who will not be named HQ account on the importance of the iStock community
5689
« on: January 20, 2012, 13:27 »
You had to have 150 on line by Jan 9th.
It appears some editing was done but not very carefully. Why have a registration deadline of February 1st with a requirement to have 150 images accepted by a month earlier than that? I also don't like this "We will also try our very best to maintain the levels of 50% nett commission to you for as long as possible." W*T*F is that supposed to mean?
5690
« on: January 20, 2012, 02:27 »
Interesting that one of ThinkStock's selling points is "simplicity". Wonder who they're trying to differentiate themselves from?
If I had to guess, this is insider thinking from some Getty folks - it's simpler than RM license pricing or their main site with both RM and RF plus a pile of collections. This ignores the fact that there are a bunch of other micro sites out there that are equally simple. If you were comparing SS and TS, I don't think you'd find TS "simpler".
5691
« on: January 19, 2012, 20:12 »
And the discount code is BYTES2011 - they must have laid off whoever writes these not-very-funny outage messages. So we save money by recycling old 2011 verbiage
5692
« on: January 19, 2012, 18:48 »
Is that Kelley Thompson at ShutterStock?
Kelley (vs. Kelly) has hg for last name and says they were let go in July, so I think it isn't KKT.
5693
« on: January 19, 2012, 16:58 »
I got the same answer to this morning's support ticket and my PayPal payment arrived shortly afterwards.
I understand delays happen, just be up front about it and specific about when things will be fixed. That communication thing does seem to be hard for companies to manage...
5694
« on: January 19, 2012, 16:55 »
... but I think we're about to see iStock get swallowed up by the Getty machine. the question is whether to go with the flow or walk the plank and hope the sharks are friendly
I think there are negative ramifications of trouble at iStock for all of us who sell there - independents for whom it is one of the top earners (even if smaller than it was), and exclusives for whom the Getty-run business may be as shark infested as independent waters seem to be. I think it will mean lower royalty percentages, fewer choices over where your content goes (I think the opt out for the partner program will very soon be gone, for example). I think that a flood of new content from departing exclusives may dilute earnings for independents at other sites, although that might improve as more buyers migrate to find the content. That curse - may you live in interesting times - comes to mind.
5695
« on: January 19, 2012, 13:32 »
I don't have my cash yet either
5696
« on: January 19, 2012, 13:29 »
In particular, it suggests to me that decisions about content - what's accepted, where it goes, etc. - are all moving to Getty. If I had to make a guess, I'd say that iStock will become an input portal for Getty Images "crowdsourced" content. Down to Thinkstock/photos.com or up to Getty (Vetta/Agency).
5697
« on: January 19, 2012, 13:06 »
5698
« on: January 19, 2012, 13:05 »
5699
« on: January 19, 2012, 12:54 »
In the "Sales Type" column it will say "Subscription" instead of "Standard"
5700
« on: January 19, 2012, 12:42 »
Pursuing other interests or spending more time with your family are both ways of saying someone's been pushed out, IMO.
I feel bad for someone who relocates and is then dumped, but I do think it was pretty predictable this would happen when you're offered VP after being COO of a business unit (which always seemed like one of those temporary slots used to move people out without a fuss). Given that my opinion of Kelly's tin ear for the iStock community and how his messages would go over, perhaps he's just really bad at reading people and situations and couldn't read Getty's messages to him any more than he could read those of contributors to iStock.
I hope he can land on his feet somewhere, but I hope it's a million miles from any stock agency or software development outfit I am in any way associated with.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|