|
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
6176
« on: September 03, 2011, 18:37 »
I did see the posts and I guess their logic for deleting them was that the thread was ostensibly for questions about the new ASA and the pastor's post was more a comment than a question - the questions were rhetorical, as I know we all know the answers.
We're effed, they rule and if we don't like it, we should just leave. Ugly stuff. Even uglier when they try to tack on a veneer of how it's all for our benefit.
And how did I end up here, fuming about iStock (again) when I really was looking for a recipe to cook golden beets!!
6177
« on: September 03, 2011, 11:32 »
Friendly to contributors is very nice, but it's not enough. Not to say that being Getty-like to contributors is OK, but that a marketing plan, decent prices, reasonable royalty structure and a solidly functioning site are critical.
I'll keep an eye on PhotoDune to see how things evolve, but at the moment I don't think it makes sense for me. 25% on a low price, low volume site with insanely low EL prices just doesn't add up.
6178
« on: September 03, 2011, 11:07 »
My experience with P+ has been positive too - it is hard to be really certain about this as so many other site ups and downs and best match shifts muddy the statistical waters.
The reason I think it works so well is that all the exclusive content on the site is already at that price, so from a buyer's perspective it's more like removing a discount rather than increasing the price. The Vetta/Agency uplift they notice as it's so enormous, but IMO not the P+
But of course we don't know about the sales we didn't make, and there was some worry that over time best match position might decline (as some had reported it did with Exclusive+, but that was quite a large boost in price).
6179
« on: September 02, 2011, 23:48 »
...so once i go exclusive i'm allowed to submit a few per week and its all up to the editors?
Right. If you get a lot accepted you can ask for a higher quota and they might give you more slots, but that's discretionary. Back at the beginning of Vetta there were requests to have a Vetta critique forum - where you could get feedback on why a file you submitted didn't make the cut. The admins who run that editing process said no - quite bluntly - and it has been asked many times. It is also now the case (as of last September) that you get a lower royalty rate on Vetta/Agency than you do on the rest of your iStock sales, and that there is a large pile of Getty content that got fast-tracked into the Agency collection, so there's competition from off site as well. The Vetta/Agency stuff is mirrored at Getty Images (no opt out; you have to if you've opted in to Vetta/Agency) and the results were very mixed as to how much extra business came that way. And of course any sales via Getty were at 20% and no RC for the sale. Given that I just returned to independence after nearly 3 years as an exclusive, you may want to take into account that I am not the most likely candidate to talk you into exclusivity 
6180
« on: September 02, 2011, 22:53 »
After seeing the iStock forum question on this topic, also signed Mike, I assume you're sweetlifephotos? Lovely portfolio (small so far) - and seems more in the Agency vein than Vetta (the joke was that you need to do grungy and dark with a vignette to get a Vetta acceptance, and light and bright for Agency. Take a look at Christian Wheatley's portfolio (similar themes to yours) to see what Vetta/Agency shots he has.
6181
« on: September 02, 2011, 22:37 »
Both Vetta & agency collections are edited. You can submit a limited number of your new images each month but the editors decide what's in or out. No appeal, no discussion. You can look at the existing collections to see what the editors like, and once you're exclusive you can see the Vetta & Agency forums where people show their latest rejected images (not to get anything changed, but to commiserate). The big win is that your prices are higher (not just your royalty rate) and arguably you get better search placement. Photos+ allows independents to effectively sell a portion of their portfolio at exclusive prices (2 credits for XS vs. 1 credit, for example). If you search these forums you will find many prior threads on the pros and cons including this recent one.
6182
« on: September 02, 2011, 19:01 »
"1-954-990-0075 (10 AM - 8 PM ET) for English-speaking users"
Unfortunately it's almost 8pm Eastern and Monday is a holiday, but I would definitely write, call (perhaps you can leave a message). They should have a procedure when e-mail is changed where they send e-mail to both the old and the new addresses (many of the financial institutions I deal with do this) which says something to the effect of - if you didn't initiate this change, contact us xxx
The good news is that if they're closed until Tuesday morning, whoever has compromised your account probably can't get your money out in the meantime.
When you first had this problem with iStock, did you change all your account passwords and did whoever break in to your DepositPhotos a/c thus have your new passwords? If so, that means you have an ongoing problem with information on your system being compromised. If you still had your old password, then it could have been that one time breach. If you didn't change all your passwords before, I think now would be the time to get right on that...
6183
« on: September 02, 2011, 18:48 »
When someone has the best new site name since SnapVillage and is so utterly clueless about the new business they purport to be starting, they're going to get dumped on.
This doesn't even rise to the level of a serious attempt. There's a reason why people are rude about some of these new sites - they're flat out insulting to contributors, even if unintentionally. You could view it as this forum doing them a favor - get given the brutal truth now versus getting egg on their face in a broader setting.
I did go look at the front page. On top of all the other problems already noted, the photo sucks. If you're going to pitch yourself for selling stock, you need to have something drop dead gorgeous on the front page.
6184
« on: September 02, 2011, 18:39 »
Skimming those threads it looks like a combination of problems with a third party company who was processing payments and really crappy customer service. I'd have thought they could have headed most of that off at the pass just by getting someone into the forums to make it clear they were working on the problem.
Doesn't sound like financial issues to me, and SS support has never been all that responsive (which isn't to excuse them, but just to say that it isn't anything new).
6185
« on: September 02, 2011, 17:51 »
That seems highly unlikely to me. When you say "people complaining" - I did read one thread here about a check problem. Other than that, nada. So are these complaints on the SS forums and do we know whether this relates to a particular country (with Moneybookers) or some PayPal related problem with particular accounts - none of which have squat to do with financial viability.
I think you'll need to get more specifics given that most of the people I know who've been doing this a while have nothing but a record of on-time or early payments from SS.
6186
« on: September 02, 2011, 13:08 »
...I had wondered why that photo was the top seller for a time. My husband (the model) and I had speculated that maybe PhotoDune was the stock site of choice for foot fetishists. 
I can see my stuff will fit right in there at Envato. I will certainly look you guys up if I ever get to Australia, and I will be sure to bring my famous hubby and my celebrated toes. ...
When I first saw those pictures, I wondered in passing whose toes those were - your husband is an amazing model, but I couldn't imagine such an intimate shot with you as photographer and someone else's toes. So when you say you don't like to be in front of the camera, your toes have an exemption What a fun story!
6187
« on: September 02, 2011, 12:25 »
... unless of course they want dowdy images of businessmen wearing brown suits using cell phones the size of house-bricks.
There's my niche! No one's doing images like that...
6188
« on: September 02, 2011, 11:51 »
There's a post this morning from someone called TechVeep saying all this is a result of a code push yesterday that broke things. I'll refrain from saying something snarky like - Oh, there's a surprise; new code on the site breaks a bunch of important working things - as that would be mean (if true). So it's their highest priority, yada, yada, yada
6189
« on: September 02, 2011, 11:37 »
...For most independents, they have more files on SS than on IS anyway (because of upload limits and SS's very different editorial choices about what they accept). Not to mention those independents who aren't on IS anyway. So putting independent IS content onto TS & photos.com is unlikely to hurt SS in any way. My guess is that this move will hurt the earnings of those who are already in IS's partner program though - big influx of competition for existing subscriber dollars.
So I could make the argument that other than hurting my pride by (a) having no control of my images being there and (b) TS & photos.com being Getty's dumping ground for not so good content, I wouldn't be hurting SS by having my images in the partner program.
If that logic holds, then the point I should pull out of IS altogether is when Getty mandates that exclusives have all their content in the partner program - at that point Thinkstock would have something SS doesn't have and might be able to gain some subscription defections as a result...
Could be true. It does make sense. ...
From your post this morning in the IS thread, it seems you've bought into my thread of reasoning I'm still thinking (about 3 weeks left, and that's assuming they can actually get the connector working; given the shambles on the site last night and this morning, that's a very big if)
6190
« on: September 01, 2011, 20:02 »
BTW Lisa, this crazy idea just popped into my head; you going exclusive would actually make sense if IS is by far your strongest earner. No hassle with multiple agencies and I think they'd treat an exclusive BD very well, you just might get a big boost in sales 
I thought the same thing a year and a half ago. But since then I have come to the conclusion that Getty doesn't treat ANYONE very well.
Your husbend should treat you well. Your ditributor should make you the most money possible for you.
You being exclusive to IS would most probably make you more money then then today.
On one of the (several) prior occasions when Lisa was sitting on that fence of hers - the one she kindly lent me as I tried to decide if I should leave being exclusive - I had told her (a) iStock would be lucky to have her as an exclusive and (b) that I thought she'd do very well as one - I think that was in 2009 or early 2010. I knew I was taking a risk back in 2008 given Getty's prior behavior with every other acquisition and how they've treated their photographers. I gambled that it would take them a while to start Getty-izing iStock and that perhaps if the company was doing well they'd just leave it alone. Wrong! The fact that H&F wanted its half-billion dollar dividend last year certainly didn't help, but Getty's now firmly in the driver's seat and Lisa would be no more "safe" than anyone else in their march for a max of 20% for any content and short term profits over long term growth of both the business and the contributors. Given the size of Lisa's portfolio, the massive amount of work (not to mention loss of search position) to undo going exclusive if it didn't work out in a year or two would be horrendous - there's no simple "try it and see if you like it" when you're that established at so many top sites. In short, I can't think of a worse idea now than for Lisa to go exclusive with iStock. Can't trust Getty one iota and she has too much to lose and too little to gain.
6191
« on: September 01, 2011, 19:09 »
I was just checking out stinkstock...er, I mean thinkstockphotos.com and I notice that the photographer/artist name is not attached to any of the images - they are just listed by collection. is that really how it is or am I missing something in how you can tell who the artist is for a particular image?
If you know a person's real (copyright) name, you can search for it in quotes and find their portfolio on Thinkstock - here's shank_ali as an example. They don't make it straightforward, and I'm not even sure there's been an explicit promise to fix it - something like "we're aware of the the problem..."
6192
« on: September 01, 2011, 15:06 »
...All I know right now is that it makes me sick to my stomach to have to make a decision like this. ...
Big +1 on that. Lobo wouldn't answer the question that he himself raised when he said (in reply to a comment saying "The ability (for now) of staying opted out of the PP may be one of the biggest perks of being exclusive....") "That is interesting. There are actually a high percentage of exclusives in the PP. So, hrmm." I said that my guess would be the large percentage would be for bronze/silver exclusives and that for gold/diamond/black diamond the percentage would be much smaller. He said to stay on topic of ASA changes. For as long as the heavy-hitter exclusives stay out of the partner program, Thinkstock has a problem - it can't do better than SS on content, only on price. For most independents, they have more files on SS than on IS anyway (because of upload limits and SS's very different editorial choices about what they accept). Not to mention those independents who aren't on IS anyway. So putting independent IS content onto TS & photos.com is unlikely to hurt SS in any way. My guess is that this move will hurt the earnings of those who are already in IS's partner program though - big influx of competition for existing subscriber dollars. So I could make the argument that other than hurting my pride by (a) having no control of my images being there and (b) TS & photos.com being Getty's dumping ground for not so good content, I wouldn't be hurting SS by having my images in the partner program. If that logic holds, then the point I should pull out of IS altogether is when Getty mandates that exclusives have all their content in the partner program - at that point Thinkstock would have something SS doesn't have and might be able to gain some subscription defections as a result. Or I could have it all a** backwards
6193
« on: September 01, 2011, 11:51 »
Furthermore with the new image search capability of Google, if I was a customer I would always searched for the photo I liked in IS. Maybe it pops up in Thinkstock. If yes I would pay less and the contributor loses money. Isn't Thinkstock subs only? If so, it fits the mass buyers, not the eventual buyers.
Thinkstock offers image packs - effectively credit packs - as well as subscriptions
6194
« on: August 31, 2011, 19:58 »
I don't even know what they pay for Thinkstock downloads. Was it .25 or is it even lower than that now?
It went up to .28 a few months back. The tactic of starving them for content forced them to up royalties. Now that all independents are pushed into the PP that may change though.
that was my very first thought, they can now push it back down and almost nobody will withdraw their files as it'll mean taking them off IS too
I wouldn't be too sure about that last part. I'm already on the fence about leaving iStock completely and that sort of push would be likely be enough to do it. As would another cut in independent's royalty rates - all these income reducers just take away one more reason to stay.
6195
« on: August 31, 2011, 12:10 »
I have found the reviewing process pretty uneven across the board - LCV rejections for proven bestsellers from SS and 123rf; incorrect title/keyword rejections from DT when I can't see a single out of place keyword (and they don't tell you what they don't like); SS rejecting former Vetta images for incorrect white balance (because they were shots with the sun in the frame) and on and on. If I were to delete my portfolio from every site with nutso reviewing, I wouldn't have it anywhere I just ignore the rejections and upload what they'll take. I can't control them and the sites no longer care what contributors think as they're all now big enough that individually, most of us are dispensible.
6196
« on: August 31, 2011, 11:50 »
I don't make much use of the ignore button, but it is helpful when someone wants to derail a discussion. Don't reply and they'll eventually stop posting. Back to the original topic, I have been mulling over just leaving iStock altogether. It feels like being stuck in abusive relationship where you keep hoping things will get better, so you stay. You remember how it used to be and feel angry and sad. I'm under no illusions that they would give a hoot, but it might help me focus better on something positive. I don't want to act in anger given that I would have a lot to lose - but the battering stream of negatives is doing a number on my optimism Perhaps the best compromise is leave the portfolio and just don't upload there any more, but the notion of assisting Getty with Thinkstock photos.com and clipart.com is repulsive. They can call it "downstream" (versus upstream, meaning Getty Images & pals) but it's clear it's their bargain basement. ETA that I've removed my vectors from iStock - I won't sell those for 28 cents a pop (I don't on any other site with subscriptions either). I wouldn't mind having the JPEGs as a subscription product but iStock doesn't permit that (JPEGs derived from vectors).
6197
« on: August 30, 2011, 20:33 »
I dropped my exclusivity there two weeks ago ( i have to wait another two weeks to get crown removed)
I'm note sure that I will stay there with my files at all, since I found to difficult to accept new ASA.
Are you planning to contribute to other sites after your 30 days are up? If so, you can be opening accounts and getting approved (at the sites that require that) now. In some cases - SS and DT at least, possibly others - you can also start the upload process so you will be ready to roll at full (ish) speed once you're free to sell elsewhere.
6198
« on: August 30, 2011, 17:19 »
Regarding your question about whether iStock is worth it for someone new, I think the answer is still yes, in spite of the 15% base royalty. It's true there have been some weird days or weeks this summer where really old files are selling (which obviously is bad news for new contributors) but in general, iStock's sales volume is still high enough to earn you decent money. Get DeepMeta ( Mac/ Windows) to handle uploads as iStock's on-site uploading sucks. Once you have enough images uploaded, put those that sell best into Photo+ which will help earnings quite a bit.
6199
« on: August 30, 2011, 16:52 »
Perhaps someone has some experience they care to share about good ways to proceed when something like this happens - i.e. how to clean up to be sure the would-be thief can't get at anything of yours. I know avoiding the problem is best, but still might be worth thinking about recovery too. I'd think you would want to change all your passwords - not just the one at iStock. Some recent advice I read was that password length was more important than letter/number mixes or other criteria (can't find the link to the article, but that link talks about length, special characters, etc). What about e-mail address - should that be changed too?
6200
« on: August 30, 2011, 14:44 »
I'm happy to see (via the iStock Help forum) that Lobo cancelled the payment request and so this attempt to get at your funds has failed. Reminder to all of us to be careful about this stuff.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
