|
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 - loop
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 44
576
« on: March 30, 2011, 16:49 »
I don't know why people always bring up the "he is a nice person and seems like a good guy" thing. Many neighbors of Jeffrey Dahmer that were interviewed said things like "he was such a nice boy, he used to mow my lawn every week" and "he always said hi to me when he passed by".
And no, I'm not comparing KK to Jeffrey Dahmer. My point is, just because you meet a person a few times and they seem "nice" doesn't mean you really know a person.
More can said about a person by things like what kind of company they work for, how they treat their customers, how they treat their vendors, etc. not just to their face but behind their back, too. It doesn't really matter to me what kind of a nice guy KK is. He still works for Getty/IS, and Getty/IS still took away money from me. That he affiliates himself with such a company speaks volumes to me.
For those who don't know who Jeffrey Dahmer is, in a nutshell, a serial killer who ate his victims.
Maybe, but often you don't need more than five minutes to know if someone you've just meet is a jerk, I've gone through this many times in my life.
577
« on: March 30, 2011, 16:44 »
@loop: you're probably right. I guess I should have said traditional publishing. I worked/still work in traditonal print publishing. The whopping royalty percentage for my book was 6 percent. Articles for publications are different. I'm usually paid a flat rate per piece, no royalties. anyways, back on topic...the incorrect data in the article, IMO, is more directly attributable to the publication rather than to KK.
That's the point. We don't do traditional photographing.
578
« on: March 30, 2011, 13:44 »
the article is fine IMO.
Including the blatant lie: "commission levels stretch from 20% to 45%"?
Can we hazard a guess as to the extent of this lie:
Number of contributors earning less than 20% commission = ?
Number of contributors earning 45% = ?
would it have mattered if he had said 15% to 40%? it wouldn't have changed the context of the article in any way. to put it in perspective, in publishing authors get 4% to 8%-if we're lucky. I'm not stating that I agree with 15% for non-exclusives. I completely disagree with so low a percentage in our industry for any artist. but I'm just saying that suggesting it was a great big LIE designed to mislead seems silly. because even had they printed the 'truth', it would have hardly changed the article.
Sorry, but digitally publishing authors (uploading an selling through the web, as we do) get 70%, i. e., at Kindle Direct of Amazon. There's a little diference from 4-8 to 70.
579
« on: March 30, 2011, 06:28 »
That would be an interesting figure to know, not just at SS, but at every MS site that sells subscriptions. I really don't know if what they pay to On Demand sales could be a clue.
580
« on: March 28, 2011, 10:08 »
I'd say it haven't affected too much my port. I have more sales, yes, but hell, it's March, and March is the better month in the whole year.
581
« on: March 27, 2011, 12:04 »
I began to feel sorry for this little thing. I'm sure that it should be possible to be a thief without being stupid as well.
582
« on: March 25, 2011, 13:12 »
So.... the water drop... good enough for MS?
I made better shots wen I was ten. Not many... two or three out of hundreds, maybe. MS is not about the ability of making one good shot now and then, but of producing and uploading many acceptable or good pics a week. That's how this works. That said, there must be ten thousand or so water drops photos, many more commercial than yours, at the MS sites. I don't like the black background, but that's just my taste.
583
« on: March 25, 2011, 12:28 »
If you need to stir controversy and post your links here to have ten or twenty, hits... Well, that talks a lot.
584
« on: March 25, 2011, 11:56 »
It seems that you don't understand well this business: We don't sell just images: we sell licenses as well. Of course, photos can be grabbed by amateurs for their amateur blogs or pages, that is difficult to control, but very few legitimate business, big or small, would use unlicensed images. Those are the costumers that matter; the others wouldn' buy even if they could not rob.
585
« on: March 25, 2011, 10:44 »
Well, it can be done much more than 5,000 at MS, believe me.
586
« on: March 23, 2011, 13:57 »
Where did I read almost exactly the same paragraph?
587
« on: March 17, 2011, 14:46 »
There's is also an EL Opt In-Opt Out in the home page f every contributor, near the bottom right.
588
« on: March 17, 2011, 14:38 »
Hi All,
The one area that surprises me is that with 12 years of sales at Getty this has never happened to me before and still does not seem to be a problem with their RM/RF macro collections. I don't understand why this is only a problem with their Istock collection. I am sure there is a good answer but why never before with the other areas of their business models.
Best,
Jonathan
The point is... Did Getty report sales daily? Di buyers pre-payed for their images? With a delayed system payment is way easier to avoid credit card fraud.
589
« on: March 16, 2011, 13:18 »
I had the same problem with a file some time ago. It wasn't any file, it was a winner with a very specific concept of my own (that was quickly copied by others). File went to 10.000 views in about two or three weeks. Ratio wiews/downlad (I think that is one of the Best Match factors, although not sure) is, rigth now, 50/1, very low. In a 1.000 results search is now at number eight.
I wrote to support; they said they had revised the file status and that it was ok. I wasn't convinced, but there's nothing I can do about it.
590
« on: March 15, 2011, 19:52 »
Working as ever, here. Uploading daily. Motivated enough, the only photo you don't sell for sure is the one you don't shot. I just look at the forums two times a day, and quite fast, after a while, argument are simply repetitive.
591
« on: March 14, 2011, 10:17 »
I still don't get it.
Will it make an iota of difference to anyone if the five get back from the call and say "don't worry it'll all be fine" or "ooohhhh it's terrible run for the hills" with no further info?
Everyone except those five will still be in the mushroom position; in the dark and fed on sh*t
Yes, provided I can trust this persons (i.e. sjocke), for me it would be enough.
592
« on: March 14, 2011, 06:41 »
I felt in one of KellyK's posts he wished the iStock staff could let the contributers know more of what is going on and how things are going to be resolved - but they couldn't for some reason.
I feel the conference call will be letting those 5 contributers know what they wished they could tell everyone. I feel they want to tell those 5 contributers why / how things will get 'better' so they can tell everyone else that it is true, things will get 'better'. That way it can come from the mouths of someone 'impartial' instead of the iStock staff who most people no longer believe.
So if THAT is all true, the NDA would just be making sure they don't repeat what was actually said but they could (and hopefully would) repeat that yes, things will get 'better'. ... and know why themselves.
Well stated. I think all is reduced to that, no need of conspiracy theories.
593
« on: March 13, 2011, 21:31 »
Sounds weird. Are you sure you don't have the search sorted by "contributor"?
594
« on: March 13, 2011, 19:02 »
The NDA can be necessary. Or not. It's difficult to tell without knowing what has happened (although I suspect that there's something more in the thieves motivations than the scheme "stolen credit-cards/illegal downloads for profit). At least, the elected contributors will be able to say if they are satisfied or not with what they wil be told. That would be enough for me.
595
« on: March 10, 2011, 16:17 »
rogermexico said one week ago or so that this was fixed. It seems it isn't. I don't know if this works for everybody or just for some. Anyway, I don't like it. It doesn't seem difficult to fix. Or, if it is difficult (I really can't imagine why) they could at least, for the moment, to put a note on the uploads page urging everyone to respect their limits.
As someone said in the IS forums, exceeding files could be deactivated and reactivated at the right rythmin without nedd of further uploading or inspections.
596
« on: March 09, 2011, 11:38 »
Well, at least one person will have success (money) from this: the lawyer.
597
« on: March 08, 2011, 10:33 »
In my view, sales fluctuation has a principal cause: best match tweaks. And PP could have a secondary but also significative weight. Las week I got one e-mail of someone asking if she coul find some specific file of my IS folder at TS. Having answered her no, the file sold in IS (L) minutes later
598
« on: March 02, 2011, 14:57 »
Yuri's model is nicer to look at, the composition and pose are better, the lighting and exposure are spot on, and the scale doesn't look like it came from Walmart.
Point, yuri. This is a case where the better shot wins.
Yes, it seems copied. On the other hand, the model in the weak photo has a clear "real people" look that sometimes, for some campaigns, could be useful too.
599
« on: March 02, 2011, 12:48 »
It's true that Feb downloads were somewhat dull at IS. Ot the positive side, these three first days of March, at least for me, are the best I can remember.
How have you managed to squeeze three March days in, while I am only halfway through the second?
Ouch... I meant the tree days of this week, Monday, Tuesday and today, that is shaping even better than Monday and Tuesday.
600
« on: March 02, 2011, 12:22 »
It's true that Feb downloads were somewhat dull at IS. Ot the positive side, these three first days of March, at least for me, are the best I can remember.
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 44
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
