|
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
5801
« on: December 28, 2011, 23:09 »
I haven't had that specific situation, but wouldn't iStock CE be the people to contact? They'll probably just seek the appropriate EL purchase - I can't imagine any damages could be high enough to offset legal fees.
5802
« on: December 28, 2011, 23:07 »
I'm very surprise that people that are so openly against istockphoto just expend so much energy (negative) writing and commenting continuously about it, even the ones that are not uploading or the ones that are so fervently planning not to do it.
So you're new with no portfolio link to give us a clue as to what skin, if any, you have in the game. Random spit balls from anonymous new members is more heat than light IMO. If you don't like the vibe in these forums, feel free not to participate. If you have something concrete to add to the discussion, I'm missing it in the above post.
5803
« on: December 28, 2011, 21:59 »
In my opinion, main reason from losing some buyers is price. Yes, there was a difference in price years ago, but the one we have now exceed the limits of microstock and goes to midstock (almost macro for agency, just seeing this prices can scare budget buyers, true), while other stay where they were (ALL AT 35 cents!!!) or have gone up a couple of cents. But at least istock sell our files at a decent price.
There are some stellar files at iStock in the exclusive collection. There's also a lot of very ordinary dreck. There's also some utter rubbish from Getty that would be hard to sell at regular exclusive prices, let alone Vetta & Agency (there are some great images in there too, but Vetta/Agency has gone from being a tightly edited collection of images, carefully chosen on merit by editors to a tip heap of stuff Getty wants to sell). iStock could have a try to be a midstock agency with high prices but it isn't going to do that with all the content it has now, and it isn't clear why it would be any more successful with that then when Getty tried it (and iStock stole their thunder). Perhaps they have the stomach to toss not only independents (with some really excellent content) but lots of their "meh" exclusive content to end up with a collection that's worth premium prices. That'd be a very tough sell to iStock exclusives, IMO, but might make more sense to buyers than the current jumble of content quality and jumble of pricing levels. Also, you can't buy a single image for 35 cents anywhere. The only way to get those prices is to sign up for a monthly or longer subscription.
5804
« on: December 28, 2011, 15:50 »
98% of my uploads are isolations and were accepted. The few that were rejected were for failing to meet size requirements. You can find the reason by clicking on Hidden, and then clicking on the thumbnail. The explanation is to the right of the photo.
Hard Rejections are not in the hidden section; those are soft rejections. Hard rejections are not visible anywhere on the site as far as I know.
5805
« on: December 28, 2011, 15:47 »
I see your port, so your photos are on sale and that's what matters the most  . It's really not big of a deal if it will actually take a few days to fix it, unless you have a big batch of photos to upload.
You can for now see the images in a search but if you click on one you get an image unavailable page - IOW no one can buy the images. I don't understand why the port was pulled if the deadline (Jan 4th) hasn't yet arrived. To answer your question, I haven't received anything from them, and if the audit were to get decent ID, I think I'd have been contacted. I've been with SS so long, my account was opened when there was no ID requirement. I have given them W9s so they have my social security number, address, etc., but perhaps they're handling US and other countries differently? Are you in the US or elsewhere?
5806
« on: December 28, 2011, 14:11 »
...Have you looked at the prices of your images at istock vs other agencies. At one agency I could buy 15 of your images for the cost of one image at istock. They are the exact same image. No difference whatsoever. But price isn't the cause of the loss of sales to istock???
You're looking today, but for those of us who have been around at iStock (and other sites) since before there even was exclusivity at iStock realize that prices have fluctuated over time at sites that have been around for years. Mostly it's been upwards, just more so at iStock than elsewhere. Content that has been on all those sites for all those years got more expensive at iStock (not the huge price rises that came from putting longstanding exclusive content into Vetta and Agency, but still a rise). iStock has been competing very successfully with those other sites for all those years and their decline did not coincide with other sites cutting their prices to demolish iStock. It came with some really poorly thought out moves that IMO were largely driven by H&F & Getty. In other words you make it sound as if contributors are making some change or the other sites are making a change that is why things aren't going well at iStock. Taking the long term view that just makes zero sense.
5807
« on: December 28, 2011, 14:06 »
I don't even see the rejection reasons at PhotoDune - I have opted for the once a day e-mail and via that route you don't even see the total list of rejections let alone any reasons.
I did that because their rejections are so insane that I just can't be bothered with trying to sort it out. I just upload and they take or they don't. With other sites I try to learn about their likes and dislikes to try and feed them what they want. When there is no fathomable pattern or consistent reasoning in rejections, there's no point. It's possible that some of the bulk rejections might have been for isolations they wanted elsewhere.
They're outsourcing their reviewing. They've heard via this forum what some of us think of the process. They keep on going. Clearly it must be meeting their needs, but I think they're doing themselves a huge disservice.
5808
« on: December 28, 2011, 14:00 »
...Has anyone else noticed that some search words/phrases seem to have virtually disappeared? Try a search on 'roast lamb' for example. I'm getting zero results even when using different PCs and ISPs. Same with 'lamb (mutton)'. The phrase 'lamb shank' only generates 5 results although there are well over 100 within the library. I'd assume that there must be other similar issues.
If you do a search on roast and lamb you get some results - that suggests to me that they've introduced a new CV term - Roast Lamb - but no files have that and they haven't made the search changes that should go with that (if you do a cv term search that gets 0 results, try the two words AND-ed and put up a message about what you did). The fact that there are a bunch of very cute and very alive lambs that show up in the search for roast and lamb appears to be spamming. I don't think keywording animals with the meal they might become is helpful in any way to buyers
5809
« on: December 27, 2011, 18:24 »
Is there really any noticeable difference in selling these files for 0.25 any size at TS and selling them at all these others subs sites (FT, SS etc) for 0.35 any size? From a principles point of view, for me, it isn't at all.
There is a difference. I don't sell at FT, so I can't comment on that, but at SS, for example, everything you sell counts towards getting you a higher royalty, not only on the subscriptions (which go up to 38 cents, not 35) but also on the on-demand and single sales which last month were about half my total. Sales at the iStock partner program count for nothing anywhere beyond the 28 cents a piece (it went up from 25 for independents after a lot of us held our images out the program because it was such a lousy deal for contributors. And if you think that selling in volume for 28 cents a piece is fundamentally equivalent to selling them at 38 cents a piece I don't know what to say.
5810
« on: December 27, 2011, 18:16 »
Nothing for me - I've only been back there since June though, so if it was based on earnings, I probably wouldn't have made enough.
5811
« on: December 27, 2011, 10:26 »
I'm going to have to think about this a bit more - what else would a visit to the dentist be good for?  - but in the current best match state, I'm tempted to remove all my iStock bestsellers while they're still not on ThinkStock/photos.com. Right now I'm still at 14 files (of about 2,500) migrated to Thinkstock. I have no idea, given how broken the "connector" has been to date, how long it'd take to remove files from there once I remove them from iStock. Given how totally buried my bestsellers are, if they're not going to make sales at iStock, why give them to Thinkstock and make less than almost anywhere else on a subs sale or two? Seems like a window to take advantage of, unless this current best match makes a huge left turn after the new year - if it was just some sort of year end hail mary pass trying to get (some?) exclusives' RC totals up. I am still seeing a thin dribble sales (one today so far), but atypically nothing for Christmas eve/Day, and not the buried best sellers...
5812
« on: December 27, 2011, 10:08 »
Very solid for a middle tier/nearly top tier site, and although sales have slowed in this last week (as they have everywhere over Christmas), December's going to be within $10 of November, and that was up 50% over October, so I'm happy. My first month with them (as a returned independent) was June 2011, although it was my old account - don't see how that would have made any difference though.
5813
« on: December 26, 2011, 01:54 »
I suggest you contact Dan via the WarmPicture site - I'm fairly sure that he did some sort of algorithm that gave factors other than sales a role in some search placements, but he can check for you.
5814
« on: December 24, 2011, 03:58 »
It's now Christmas Eve on the US West Coast. Merry Christmas to everyone at MSG and hoping for a peaceful and prosperous 2012 for us all.
5815
« on: December 24, 2011, 01:35 »
How can you not hate istockphoto?
This is a serious question!
My best attempt at a serious answer. Those people who are selling well - it appears that exclusives with lots of recent uploads in 2011 would be in that group - are pleased with the results and can look the other way when it comes to the long string of broken promises. Triumph of hope over experience - they hope they won't get screwed the way others who came before them did. If/when the sales slow - they would then be making the higher royalties and then no longer Getty's ideal contributor - perhaps they'll get angry then. I don't think I'll ever forget or forgive iStock for how they've behaved, but I try (sometimes successfully) not to think about hating them as it messes me up more than anything else and gets in the way of moving on to something healthier and more productive.
5816
« on: December 23, 2011, 19:03 »
Apple is exclusive in what price they set for their products. If you an Macbook its the same price not matter the supplier therefore they skip the cutthroat Dell vs Gateway pricing wars.
This just isn't how it works, at least in the US. Prices are not uniform for Apple products. I can buy from authorized Apple dealers (i.e. not some gray market item with no warranty) at a discount - here is an example from MacMall at about $75 less than Apple for the same iMac. That doesn't even count other discount possibilities via organizations like NAPP. Another example is the Airport Extreme router that's $163 at B&H versus $179 at Apple (for the latest MD031LL).
5817
« on: December 23, 2011, 14:57 »
Apple brand products are not sold exclusively by Apple, and there are competitors for iPads and iPhones - lots of companies have tried with Android tablets and smartphones. They've been very successful with the smartphones and almost a total failure with tablets. Apple also sells products that other people make - have you shopped at the Apple store for hardware? And the iTunes store is stuffed with goods that Apple didn't make.
When you say exclusive stuff only, what exactly were you referring to?
I'm not sure how your point pertains iStock's exclusivity where until very recently I couldn't buy anything from an iStock exclusive artist anywhere but iStockphoto.com. Now it's Getty family exclusivity, kind of - as Getty's contracts with Corbis result in work from iStock exclusives showing up there and other non-Getty distributors.
5818
« on: December 23, 2011, 13:58 »
... An agency manager once told me that exclusivity was a "weapon" agencies could use against their competition, and he's right...
Agencies should remember that they're not in business solely to have a dust-up and pummel their competitors - they are there to make a profit by serving their customers well. No customers, no business. Agencies are there to grow the business both by increasing their share of the market - assuming they're doing a good job with great products & services at competitive (and note, I do not mean cheapest; Apple would be an example of being competitive but not cheapest) prices - and by increasing the market as they find new customers. If all they do is focus on pushing what they want to sell or trying to crush the competitors and forget that they need to serve the buyer they're on the road to an unhappy ending. Big and successful businesses have much more time before they get hurt by the effects of their anti-buyer approach than a smaller one would and that's both good and bad news. Good news because you have time to fix things if you're open to the notion you might have made a mistake. Bad news because you're insulated from negative effects for a while and can continue the self-deluding thoughts that you can get away with anything because you're so big and successful.
5819
« on: December 23, 2011, 02:54 »
I think you left off one of the biggies - best search. Other than the quality and usefulness of the collection (niche or general) the ease of finding what you want is a huge deal. I think this clearly does not mean a CV but something closer to google-like searching with very smart "more like this" "none like this" tools to help narrow the search based on image selections as well as keywords. I think it also means being really hardcore about keywording standards so you don't have the kind of spam or missing keywords that just ruins things for buyers. Case in point some of the Getty stuff on iStock: this image is of an elephant but doesn't have the keyword elephant. It does have rainforest which is wholly inappropriate. There was a startup that did initial search results as an amazing grid of tiny squares where you could pick the ones you liked that would be used to refine the search. It was amazing that you could pretty quickly rule some things in and out from such a small thumb and refine the search in a better way. Not sure what happened to that technology. If facebook and cameras can handle face recognition, how about stock engine search that can handle the people, how many, no people thing without keywords? That sort of thing
5820
« on: December 23, 2011, 01:31 »
Yesterday had another (my third) subscription at Veer - 25 cents.
That's two at 25 cents, one at 83 for an average of 44 cents. Not terrible, but nothing to get excited about.
5821
« on: December 22, 2011, 21:10 »
It's not just about the price that the customer pays, it's also about the cut that the agency takes.
What I don't understand about our industry is why the agencies get to keep so much. App stores typically pay 70% to their content suppliers. Amazon and the like probably earn about the same (or less) despite them having to store inventory, package it, deliver it, etc.
There is more than enough money being generated from our content for both contributors and the agencies to make a very good living. I don't understand why a few agencies get to keep almost all of it.
Because contributors, me included, allow it.
I think part of the problem is on the supply side - contributors allowing it as you put it - but the other part is on the agency side. Getty is too close to a monopoly having bought up many other agencies over the years. There needs to be some real and strong competition for them - and Corbis has never managed that; SS for all its success is only in one part of the businesses Getty is in. With Getty in a too strong position, they start throwing their weight around and cutting commissions to artists (and this isn't just iStock; they've done this with many other of their acquisitions and even recently with their own editorial shooters). Then photographers try to make up the lost income somewhere and feed the various lower price agencies that bubble up all over the place. If there were several decent, competitive, viable agencies where photographers felt they were getting a reasonable deal and could trust their agency, they'd not be running around supplying the wannabes and also-rans. Right now it's like a massively dysfunctional family or business, with H&F's wretched short-term profit focus making things even worse than they were with just Getty. I don't think it's right to lay all the blame at the feet of contributors.
5822
« on: December 22, 2011, 20:37 »
...
Reminds me of gerrymandered congressional districts drawn in weird and whacky shapes to suit those in power.
Are you from Texas? 
No, but I lived in Austin for 3 years, so I do follow along. That skinny district snaking from Austin to San Antonio caught my attention...
5823
« on: December 22, 2011, 20:11 »
The change means nothing to me. Last year I had almost 45K RCs and this year it looks like I'll be just under 30K. The good news is that it's only from 18% to 17% and sales are so crappy, it matters less and less what happens there.
Why did the illustrators get royally shafted? I read masses of reports of people experiencing large drops in sales and yet all but one level of illustrator stays exactly the same. I know the issue of the real disparities between the media was worked over when this sorry system was introduced, but looking at what it takes to get to the highest level of illustration royalties versus for photos, it's reverse unfairness. You just about double the 40/19% level and you get 45/20 if you're an illustrator, but for a photographer you have to make almost 10x the 40/19% level to get 45/20.
Reminds me of gerrymandered congressional districts drawn in weird and whacky shapes to suit those in power.
5824
« on: December 22, 2011, 15:45 »
...I just know that independents do not help istock in the long run. ...
I completely disagree with this - speaking as a current independent and ex-exclusive (and ex-independent if you will). Saying only exclusives are good for iStock long term is the same sort of approach as saying that closing the contributor list helps or excluding some of the big sellers helps. IMO, as a small-ish seller, I am helped when there is a vibrant marketplace with a large and diverse pool of buyers. I won't sell what Yuri or Lise Gagne do, but having them there brings buyers some of whom will buy my stuff as well. Having the best of everything, with some exclusive content (and I don't think it much matters if the artists are exclusive; image exclusive can work equally well IMO) is a great mix - and it proved to be so for iStock for a lot of years. I also completely disagree that this forum is somehow as polarized as you see it. And I think there are a number of us who've been around for more than a few years with microstock who can definitely see all sides of the argument. It's too easy an out to just paint anyone who disagrees with iStock's recent business decisions as a rabid partisan. Just as it is a bit too glib to paint every exclusive as a hopeless fan boy. Certainly iStock is close to the point for independents where you may get your wish that iStock will effectively be exclusives only - they are slowly reducing the value of selling there. If they ever get any of the involuntary independent content onto Thinkstock (this week they're up to 14 of my 2500+ images) perhaps this will change things, but so far I have no data on that side of the equation. I think exclusives will be much worse off in an iStock that has no independents, (1) because you can't be a one-stop shop for a huge number of buyers and (2) because you then have no group to offset your higher royalty rate with, which means the Getty 20% will be your commission across the board.
5825
« on: December 22, 2011, 14:45 »
Not seeing "fantastic" sales but definitely on the upswing ... and I am closing in on a thousand images at BS.
I really don't understand. I have nearly 1,200 of my images (i.e. not my whole portfolio) at BigStock and I've had 2 sales this week and 1 last week - that's just pitiful. I'm doing much better at PhotoDune with only about 300+ of my images uploaded. I'm glad some are seeing increased activity there, but I've been thinking that uploading any more is just a waste (although I'll leave what I have a there's no point in removing it). I wonder why the difference?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
