|
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
6476
« on: May 05, 2011, 20:01 »
That photo+ shows only for images, and does not show for vectors...So i guess vectors are not included ....
They aren't for exclusive vectors either - i.e. E+ is photos only. I think there was a promise of vectors "soon" or "later", but it hasn't happened yet.
6477
« on: May 05, 2011, 17:39 »
In thinking about why they'd make this change, it seems to me the most likely thing is trying to keep revenues up in the face of declining sales volume. So while it might be fine (and possibly to buyers not so big a shock if they're already willing to pay for exclusive files - when the can find them) in the short term, if the downloads keep dropping, it won't be more than a short term band aid. The fact that it was some admin I don't remember hearing from before who announced it and they clearly had no idea what an announcement typically would be like - I suppose I should be glad they updated the front page prices - makes it seem rather hasty and not thoroughly planned out. "Could you let me know what kinds of details you are all looking for?" doesn't instill confidence in me that this admin is the right person to handle this launch's communication. I don't yet see the answer to how the search results will show these files - which seems like a huge deal to me. If buyers can't see these are more expensive from the search results, they're going to be even more upset than they already are
6478
« on: May 05, 2011, 16:36 »
Looks like it's exclusive pricing for files 2-5-10-15-20-etc. for a portion of an independent's portfolio.
It's a tempting thought...
6479
« on: May 05, 2011, 13:13 »
...I miss reading your posts in the Critique Forum.
Thanks. And I really miss making posts there too. I just couldn't see donating my time to an organization that didn't appear to value it AND was picking my pocket. I know the contributors valued it as many were kind enough to say so, but any sense that contributors were part of the iStock team just got vaporized on September 7th 2010.
6480
« on: May 05, 2011, 12:09 »
Thanks to all for the good wishes (and Rob, I'll take luck as it's always handy to have around  . I think it does make a difference that I have some experience as an independent (albeit with a 2.5 year gap) . It really isn't hard to sell via multiple agencies and as many have said the additional workload is much less than 1x for each new site. 99% of my decision is business, but there is a portion that's emotional - I'm so angry at the disrespect and contempt and I hate being ignored  If I am busy with getting things organized on all the other sites, it'll keep my mind occupied on positive things.
6481
« on: May 05, 2011, 11:39 »
There are two other little teasers in this article (if one can stomach reading beyond KKT's dismissal of contributor discontent).
"And one more new category coming for iStock: the PNG, (portable network graphics) format. Its big advantage compared with JPEG: it supports an "alpha" channel that lets designers mark parts of the overall image as transparent. That means objects work with colored or complex backgrounds without arduous image editing"
and
"Another IT project at iStock is the move to a new Getty system that's more flexible. Today, each new category requires a new infrastructure, but the new technology will let iStock offer new categories as just a new module."
I have no idea what the 2nd one is referring to
6482
« on: May 04, 2011, 22:33 »
Wonder if anyone will let you reactivate old images?
Nice thought, but other than SS (where I have about 600 images I didn't delete but just opted out) no. I also have a large number of images that were never on the other sites (from August 2008 through now), and I'm going to focus on those first anyway. I am sad that things at IS have disintegrated to the extent they have - at least for contributors like me. I think it's possible that there's a tier or two of people who will still do fine as exclusive, but close to certain that doesn't include me. Given what a wonderful year 2010 was for earnings - even with the mess of F5 - I just kept hoping... And looking at the bright side, there are a bunch of things I can do for other sites that IS wouldn't want for its collection, so it'll be fun to be able to pursue those avenues again. And if Getty buys Shutterstock, Stockfresh, etc. etc. I'll end up in the insane asylum!!
6483
« on: May 04, 2011, 17:51 »
...Microstock was based on cheap images, all at the same price, selling in large volumes to a grateful public. As far as Shutterstock are concerned ... it still is.
And 123RF and Stockfresh. They seem to be maintaining the old model for the moment. Dreamstime is drifting away as well.
Where are you shopping these days (out of curiosity)? I applied to Stockfresh (which feels a lot like StockXpert did, unsurprisingly) as I thought it had some potential (even though it's early days). What do you like about 123rf as a buyer?
6484
« on: May 04, 2011, 17:47 »
"I see this as a strategic move on Getty's part to cull out their contributors," to focus on those who actively produce and those who are willing to go along with Getty's marketing strategy, Mopsik says. But he hardly faults the agency, adding, "If images haven't sold in 36 months, what would you do?"
One approach is to ask what's wrong with the images, and the other might be for Getty to wonder what was amiss with their marketing or reach that they didn't find buyers for images that they chose as stock worthy during the editing process. Seems a bit to glib to just start a fire sale on Thinkstock. I'm sure if I drop the prices low enough I can find a buyer/two/a few for anything, but that's not what we (contributors) pay agencies their huge commissions for. I think that Getty wants contributors on the cheap as opposed to doing their job.
6485
« on: May 04, 2011, 16:56 »
The very big discounts require a call to sales people - they're not available from the web site.
Several people have written to support querying low royalties and so far (based on what I saw reported in the Help forum) contributor relations says these aren't a mistake. I think about 47 cents a credit is the lowest reported so far (my personal low as 48.something).
I'm assuming that when a big customer gets p@*#ed off about high prices they sell them a hugely discounted pile of credits to mollify them. Another way that the price hikes hurt contributors.
6486
« on: May 04, 2011, 15:21 »
Well, I have 30 days to go, but I have just canceled exclusivity. Don't think any explanations of why are needed Now I'm working on how much uploading I can get done in the next 30 days to be ready for my return to independence. The income will take a hit in the short term, but as noted above, it's taking a hit in the short term anyway!
6487
« on: May 04, 2011, 14:47 »
Maybe the logic is in the money. Maybe this strategy really works and brings in more money for Getty.
I would have thought that for image buyers to able to sort by price is important, but perhaps I am underestimating the budgets.
I think this might be a situation where you're shoring up declining volume with higher prices. In the short term it probably appears to be "fixing" the problem of growth being at much lower levels - as long as you measure only the money, not the sales volume. In the long term though, if the loss of volume is in part though loss of customers as well as fewer downloads from those who stay, and you see that some of the new customers who drifted over from Getty Images for Agency drift away after trying the new site, you may see (too late) the full effect of what appeared to be a good move up front. The other thing is that we don't know how Getty is measuring performance. If they're looking at something specific, not overall profit, IS management will be trying to meet whatever measurement Getty has set. I had someone who worked for me years ago tell of his former boss who turned down a profitable acquisition for his division - that even he admitted would be a long term win for the company - because its gross margins were low. The former boss was measured on the division's gross margin which would have declined for a while if he went ahead with the acquisition. Incentives and measuring are great, but you have to be very careful or you get these sorts of horrendously bad things happening for the longer term or overall "good".
6488
« on: May 04, 2011, 13:50 »
Funny IS told you that on the phone - I do remember there being something in the forum that said the clipping path was only available in the largest size (whatever you originally uploaded).
You could offer to send the buyer a photohop file of the full size image with clipping path but with the background white. They can then resize to match what they bought and move the path from one file to the other. I don't think there's any way to do that via IS
6489
« on: May 04, 2011, 10:32 »
Have a look at StockPhotoTalk's take on why H&F is doing this. And as far as cuts in royalty rates, I don't expect it will come from IS royalties, but I would expect that contributors to the acquired library will see their 50% royalties cut in fairly short order. Getty has done that with so many other acquisitions in the past, I can't see it as FUD to suggest that their future actions will likely follow a similar path.
6490
« on: May 03, 2011, 22:46 »
If you want to compare apples to apples with other contributors, you want to show the lowest price per credit rather than your lowest royalty. Otherwise someone at a higher or lower percentage can't compare their lowball sale to yours. There is some information in a thread here on lowball sales prices.
6491
« on: May 03, 2011, 11:08 »
I never leave money in my PayPal account, but I've been using it for over 6 years with no problems. I move the money to my bank account as soon as it hits PayPal, so while it'd be inconvenient if they froze the account for some reason, it wouldn't be a catastrophe.
I'm in the US, so I don't have any currency exchange rate issues to juggle.
6492
« on: May 03, 2011, 11:03 »
I can. There's nothing 'real' to fall back on.
iStock doesn't take it either.
How do they (Dreamstime or iStock) know there is something "real" when you submit any other .jpg or .pdf document?
They don't know with certainty, but you warrant that there is when you upload it. If they suspect that the scan has been altered they'll kick it back (in the IS forums there have been a couple of complaints about that happening for releases that hadn't been Photoshopped). All the agencies have their rules - IS's with specific shoot descriptions and no catch-all releases except for self portraits, for example. It's a bummer that there aren't standards for releases, categories, keywords and a number of other things, but at the moment, that's just the playing field we have to deal with.
6493
« on: May 03, 2011, 10:59 »
Thanks for posting the link. I do see that the price pressures on RM from RF and in particular microstock RF have changed things significantly for those who were part of the closed shop stock world pre-microstock.
However, what's been giong on in the microstock world of late has nothing to do with buyers pressuring agencies for better prices. Once microstock became successful it became a target for greedy agencies to squeeze contributors (if one reads reports from contributors to the agencies that Getty acquired earlier in its career, it was just repeating what it had done before).
I honestly don't see anything unsustainable in having RM with high price, high control, low volume at one end of the stock market and microstock RF with moderate to low prices, low control and high volume at the other. Custom shoots for those who need to have complete control and exclusivity.
The only thing that completely sustainable model doesn't allow for is H&F leeching out profits on top of contributor profits and agency profits.
6494
« on: May 03, 2011, 09:46 »
I would never report a good month while others report a bad one. Don't seem tasteful to me. And, btw, May has begun very well.
That's one way of looking at it. OTOH, if you're interested in painting an accurate picture of how things are at IS, you might help everyone out by posting about it. I noted one diamond exclusive who reported a good month (2nd BME) and one gold exclusive who had a great month. Otherwise it was bronze and silvers - and it's not that these folks don't count, but when the numbers are much smaller or there aren't the multi-year comparisons, it really isn't saying the same thing as someone with a bigger portfolio, more sales and a longer time over which to compare.
6496
« on: May 02, 2011, 13:14 »
Just a horrible month. There were a few good days here and there, but some were so awful that the hole was too deep for the good days to fill.
26% down on March 2011 (which was itself 12% down on March 2010; IOW not a barn burner) in both $$ and dowloads. Compared to April 2010, DLs down 31% and $$ down 22%
I realize that I have a lot of company looking at the stats thread on IS, but I can't figure out from that if overall the site is tanking or if there's a group of silently celebrating contributors who are experiencing great sales.
I had thought I'd wait out 2011 before deciding about dropping the crown; I have been hoping that things would turn around - that IS couldn't be that self destructive.
Even given the bank holiday in the UK today, today's sales have been like a bad weekend day and I am once again seriously thinking about whether it makes any sense to wait longer for IS to pull out of its nose dive.
6497
« on: May 02, 2011, 12:57 »
The lighting isn't good on any of them - the whites are gray; the white balance isn't right on the lettuce photo, and the composition is rather "blah" in all three.
You'll need to improve image quality, lighting and composition as well as diversifying a bit if you want to try again. Sorry to be blunt, but that's the reality of your situation, I'm afraid.
6498
« on: April 29, 2011, 16:16 »
The wording in the refund email -
Possible refund reasons:
- Accidental download;
- Credit card fraud with mandatory refund issued at request to real card holder;
- Duplicate download;
- Incorrect size/format/license purchased;
- License update;
- Performance issues (misspellings in texts, quality);
Due to the high volume of daily transactions, we cannot provide additional clarification on the refund performed. Measures are always taken for the licenses to be withdrawn and images deleted. Any subsequent unlicensed usage is liable to legal action and penalties.
I think it is utter nonsense to claim that you can't provide specifics on the refund performed. I don't believe they do so many refunds in a day that they can't check one box out of less than 10 reasons. Transparency in reporting transactions - for all the sites, not just DT - is important, and by and large missing across the board. I knew when I posted something in IS's suggestions forum that I was tossing the request into a black hole, but the suggestion here about detailed sales and refund data, in a downloadable form so we can use it if we wish, is something I'd like to see all the sites implement. Once upon a time, royalties were pretty simple. Over time, the number of prices, royalty rates, credit prices and license types has mushroomed. Often (certainly at IS) it has been contributors who noticed something and then kept on and on about it until a discrepancy was fixed. If I saw a rise in refunds, it'd be nice to know if it was fraud or someone returning a file because they didn't like it. When these things are rare, it perhaps isn't an urgent matter. But then if they're rare, DT can certainly spare the time to be specific about why the refund occurred.
6499
« on: April 28, 2011, 16:40 »
...On the other hand - we had a similar situation last year when a lot of people were complaining about a very bad April after a BME March (for almost all contributors) if I remember right.
It's true that March 2010 was spectacular for a lot of people, but I can't see any similarity between 2010 and 2011 beyond the presence of complaints. What we're complaining about this year is what appears to be a massive own goal on iStock's part as Getty/H&F try to soak every last penny out of the business regardless of any long term damage they inflict. Last year it was complaining that April wasn't anything like as good as the amazing March.
6500
« on: April 27, 2011, 18:02 »
"Video and Illustration Redeemed Credit targets for 2011 will remain the same as 2010." (Kelly Thompson)
I imagine photo's will be the same.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=325962&page=1
I very much doubt that photos will be the same as for this year. 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.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
