|
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
6501
« on: April 27, 2011, 13:42 »
Good note RT. Can't remember how to leave a note - do you have to put into description field and remove it upon approval?
Yes, that's how I do it. I also put a couple of asterisks **before and after the note** to get their attention 
At least three asterisks (I use plus signs) both before and after Also, inspectors have posted a couple of times in the forums to put such notes at the beginning of the description, not the end.
6502
« on: April 26, 2011, 10:47 »
... I want a little more control. I want to be able to upload images, see stats and use all that info to get better. I want to be able to have a better feel for what is happening and how I can change things up to make more sales....
Completely understandable, but you may have a hard time getting all the things you want. If that's the case, you need to think about priorities. Microstock can give you some of the things you want; Getty can give you some. If you can't find some niche agency that will (a) sell enough and (b) give you all the feedback you would like, you may have to choose the lesser of two evils.
6503
« on: April 22, 2011, 18:16 »
Who exactly is rubberballs by the way?
ball singular RubberBall images. They are one of the Agency Collection pseudo-exclusives on iStock, and here on Getty Images (not Agency Collection). I say pseudo-exclusive as they operate by none of the regular rules of iStock exclusivity - they sell RF images from their own web site, for example, have no upload limits.
6504
« on: April 21, 2011, 19:32 »
We've all learned that the contractual agreement doesn't mean anything either.
When you have a contract without a fixed end date (which is how the IS ASA is) and you have a clause that says they can change the terms unilaterally at any time just by posting the new terms on the site (which is essentially what the ASA says), whatever they put in the contract is no more binding on them that what they write in the forums. They can change anything at any time for any or no reason. We get to accept and continue to do business with them or pull our content and leave. The Getty contract has a term - and although they can still issue a take it or leave it requiring you to sign the new contract when yours is up, there is at least a period during which you have something a bit more stable. I think the weasle out provisions in the Getty contract are via the rate card which I think can change during the contract - to add new products like the cheap web license that earlier had a lot of Getty contributors furious with them. That long post that got deleted from one of the conference call participants referred to us (contributors) learning to live with this "nothing is certain" state of affairs. I really do get the idea in principle, but when the combination of naked greed and a bunch of spin about how it's all so good for us as contributors get combined, it's very hard to live with all the changes being so one-sided. And yes, I know I can delete my portfolio and leave - I consider that on a weekly basis
6505
« on: April 21, 2011, 09:47 »
I saw those comments was was sorely tempted to reply with a reality check, not only about Getty but about other examples of corporations that made a mistake, stubbornly stuck to it when things were changing around them and the company tanked in the end.
I decided to save my breath to cool my porridge as the saying goes.
Sometimes it's important to people to believe that their leader, or the person running things, is really competent and knows what they're doing. Things feel very uncomfortable otherwise. "Getty knows best" is like a little kid's blanket, held against the cheek. It's possible things will turn out OK, but I think it's equally possible that they'll destroy IS (even if Getty proper survives).
6506
« on: April 21, 2011, 09:29 »
One of the categories of editorial use only content that IS has permitted is isolated product shots of brand name products. I don't see why this would be any different from an iPhone 4 in that respect. From a sales point of view I doubt the expensive bag - which isn't the pattern I think of when I hear Louis Vuitton - would sell as well as a bottle of Mountain Dew or an iPhone 4, but that's a separate issue.
Ask in the IS editorial forum if you want to see if for some reason this product is different.
6507
« on: April 20, 2011, 20:09 »
I think (and this is just my gut reaction) it's that the site looks a bit like an agency, but it's just the work of one artist. It doesn't look like the artist portfolio sites (of which there are many) - not visually lush. I think people feel safe when they are dealing with the familiar or have the reassurance of something like the buyer feedback for amazon.com's small business sellers (e-bay has the same thing).
Whether buyers are worried about model releases, paying money to an unknown entity, possibility of images not being legit or some combination is hard for me to say, but I wonder if you had either some way for buyers to leave feedback or a section with testimonials from buyers, would that help.
I recently went to amazon.com to buy something (not a high price item) and it was only small sellers who had the item I wanted. I was leery of going ahead but looked at the buyer feedback and there were lots (12K+ and almost all was positive). Reassured, I placed my order (and everything was fine). I then went and left feedback for the seller.
Buyers were nervous about microstock at first, but have by and large come to terms with it being an OK way to buy (in spite of Getty sales reps trying to discourage them in the past). It may be that until enough artist sites are out there or there's some "seal of approval" that reassures buyers you're on the level, you'll get this sort of question.
6508
« on: April 20, 2011, 19:31 »
It is the large number of Vetta files from the in group of admins/inspectors that made me say this. I can't see that group taking an adversarial stand. Also that so many have found the extra cash made up for the drops in downloads. Walking away from actual cash is harder than theoretical future cash
6509
« on: April 20, 2011, 16:01 »
It's not fair, but it's a heck of a lot less unfair than the earlier deal As expected, a thread started in the main forum asking where was the photographer's deal. Until they're willing to put their Vetta income on the line, no deal for them. And enough of them won't even consider opting out, so I can't see anything similar happening for photographers. ...I really wish they could dump the Getty imports (which I think is part of the reason they had to jack up Vetta and Agency prices so high) and go back to where Vetta was initially. Add Agency as a similarly priced collection (light and bright vs. edgy and dark) and keep the royalty rates across the board.... ...I dozed off for a bit and was dreaming...
6510
« on: April 19, 2011, 18:54 »
I look at the prices at the grocery store. It's no wok at all, just a glance.
That said, istockphoto has enough different prices to make the customer aware of them. It is not that they have a "normal" price and a "Vetta" price. They have non-exclusive, regular exclusive, exclusive plus, Vetta and Agency. I think that being 5 different prices the customer should be almost instantly aware that there are differences.
But we have ample evidence that it is not the case that all buyers are like you. You can blame them for their foolishness or you can build an environment that works for them. How many customers saying "I'm sick of this" "It's wasting my time" "It used to be so great here but now I'm shopping elsewhere because this site's too expensive" will it take before you accept the buyers as they are rather than trying to insist they shape up and pay attention to all the details of the site and its many changes?
6511
« on: April 19, 2011, 18:12 »
...Oh I like that one!! pour out the baby with the bath water!!! brillant! how . do I translate that one into Swedish, to make sense?
I can't help with the translation, but I loved a story from several years ago when some Russian-speaking dignitary was visiting the US (I think Clinton). The translator asked about a sentence that included "...been there, done that..." and after getting the meaning said that in Russian, the equivalent phrase - translated to English - was "I've stepped on that rake before". I just adore the visual my brain conjures for the Russian version - so evocative!
6512
« on: April 19, 2011, 17:25 »
Obviusly, buyers are old enough to know what they are buying and what they are paying. Saying otherwise would mean callling them fools.
No. When you're accustomed to all images being at the same price and don't pay attention to marketing stuff or the forums, you could very easily overlook these collection changes without being a fool. When I buy orange juice at the grocery store, I don't look at the price each time - I know what sort of price OJ is and I buy it. If I were in a chic beachfront cafe in an expensive resort town I'd definitely check prices before buying anything. iStock has a storefront that trumpets affordability - "Find affordable results" on the top of the home page. There's nothing (other than prior bad experiences) to alert the buyer to watch what they're buying as some of the OJ is $25 an ounce instead of $4 a half gallon.
6513
« on: April 19, 2011, 16:23 »
... I'm just curious, how do you enter keywords in PS?
In the File Info dialog. You can do it in Lightroom too if that's your preferred way of working. Alamy has some special procedures (three categories of keywords, how many people in the image, picking the license type, where the image was shot, etc.) that take extra time and you can't deal with anything but the title, description and keyword via the image's metadata. In general, your goal should be to keep all that image related data in the file as much as possible. Gives you all sorts of flexibility for future uses. Unfortunately there isn't a single standard for keywording - do you include plurals/not, how to handle (or if they handle) multi-word terms, do you include UK as well as US English spellings, etc. Try to work out the closest to universally useful and then modify at the site where necessary.
6515
« on: April 19, 2011, 00:00 »
same here.... really sloooow for monday... anyone doing fairly well??
Yes, today was a pretty decent day - no best anything ever, but definitely returning to a recognizable state. But who knows when the next aftershock will hit?
6516
« on: April 18, 2011, 22:22 »
They do have an API and in the past you had to apply to get the "key" to use it. Early in 2010 they stopped giving out keys (my husband had asked for one) in anticipation of what ended up becoming F5 in August 2010.
I don't know if they're giving out access to the API again - Franky is using it for DeepMeta but he's now a contractor, so it may not be generally available.
6517
« on: April 18, 2011, 20:39 »
I wouldn't submit any of these - sorry.
1. Poor lighting, oversaturated and very limited (I think too much so) in focus area
2. Poor lighting, oversharpened. Not a stock oriented composition
3. Focus is on the soft side (f/18 not a good choice for sharpness with most lenses) and the background is neither white nor a color, and neither textured nor plain.
I think there's potential in the idea of the tennis balls shot - i.e. try again. It'd be good if you could include something other than 3 still lifes to show a bit more range.
6518
« on: April 18, 2011, 20:28 »
If you're interested in becoming one, they used to say in the forum that the number one rule was "don't ask" I've met some of them in person (at the iStockalypse HQ) - many are fellow contributors (all exclusives). You can see the silver badge with the I in their list of icons to know if someone is an inspector. No idea about pay or training, but they span the globe (don't think there are any in Antarctica but pretty much everywhere else). At one point the video inspectors were at HQ only, but that may have changed (I don't keep up with video much). There had been an article "Meet the inspectors" ages ago, but I think they're now up to 100+?
6519
« on: April 18, 2011, 16:45 »
6520
« on: April 16, 2011, 13:26 »
Anybody take the Home Office Deduction?
No. Given that I use it (and the studio space in a spare bedroom) for multiple uses, I think it'd be asking for trouble. Given the relative size of my income in the family mix, it isn't worth the unpleasantness of an audit.
6521
« on: April 16, 2011, 09:12 »
Holy crap! I just checked my Istock sales from yesterday. They were less than 1/3 of a normal day!!!
Last time I saw a non-holiday weekday that low was 2007 or so. WT-F is going on???
"Tweaking" can be painful, no? Yesterday (and most of last week) had returned to low-ish normal for me (versus the previous disastrous week). It's be interesting to see if other independents report a poor day yesterday - if independence got fewer "best match points" (using Baldrick's Trousers' explanation of the weighting) in this week's tune-up.
6522
« on: April 15, 2011, 19:14 »
I just don't understand why they can't eat a little crow and post that they should have had the update out, but they're sorry they're late. It wouldn't get anyone answers, but it would at least appear that they gave a flying eff about meeting their commitments. I don't know if they have a crappy work ethic, if they're horrendously incompetent, they truly consider contributors unimportant so that it isn't really a commitment if you tell a contributor you'll do something. If it were just this, it'd be one thing, but this has happened over and over on many issues over many weeks. This is on topic, although it won't sound like it at first. My husband has become enamored of the program Gordon Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares. We were discussing the IS disaster-of-the-day over dinner a few days back and my husband asked my daughter "what does Gordon Ramsay say?". "Bleep" came the answer Not sure if they air the swearing in the UK, but on BBC America it's bleeped out - that's how I can tell from the other side of the house if my husband is watching it - the steady stream of bleeps... At any rate, this show is where Ramsay goes in to straighten out failing restaurants and read the riot act to various non performing staff. My husband thinks we should send Ramsay to Calgary to sort out iStock While I think the footage would be funny, I read an article a while back that said that the restaurants Ramsay "saves" typically end up going under anyway...
6523
« on: April 15, 2011, 18:58 »
Just checked my last two hundred uploads, dating back to January 27th. 21 sales, so around 10% of them have sold.
I know it's hard to make comparisons, but is that less than, about the same as or more than you would have expected? To me it sounds low, especially for an emerald with a proven track record. I looked at what you uploaded to IS and if I counted right, for the first page (sorted by age which goes back to Jan 28th) you had 93 sales.
6524
« on: April 15, 2011, 16:47 »
I've now seen more than I intended to about "The Wedding" - I've been trying to avoid it, Charlie Sheen and various time wasting distractions (not always successfully  Very funny and how nice to provide a bit of a boost for those who earn their living as lookalikes - they should cash in while they can.
6525
« on: April 15, 2011, 16:45 »
LLB (Lowly Level Bronze) Tom
I must guess that you're not actually an LLB (Batchelor of Laws) or you'd be threatening to sue us for defamation of character
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
