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
6526
« on: April 15, 2011, 09:53 »
It may not stay this way, but as this week has progressed, sales have been returning to the land of the living at IS (for me). Nothing really great (i.e. no big spike over prior good days) but massively better than the prior week (which was grim). Obviously I hope this means that their "tweaks" are moving in the right direction
6527
« on: April 14, 2011, 16:43 »
The "no celebrities" rule probably has more to do with avoiding treading on Getty's toes than anything else, and I believe they said that big political names fell into that category. As far as the caption rejections, it's hard to give you a suggestion without seeing the image, but you need more details about what's going on, exactly where (street; outside a certain building; something about who the crowd was or how big it was. There are tons of examples already on the site and you can ask in the editorial forum if you're unsure about what to include. One thing that has caused rejections for others is copying from Wikipedia for the caption description. Look at examples here here, and here for the type of caption you need to produce.
6528
« on: April 14, 2011, 15:30 »
If you go to a department store the fancy stuff is always in the window. I guess it's like that ?
Not sure that department store is a good analogy - isn't the average age of a department store customer over 65? I can't remember the last time I set foot in a department store except to walk through one if it was at a mall and that was the way from my car to wherever. But even when I did shop in them, they put eye-catching stuff in the window, and that could be seasonal merchandise, sale merchandise or something they hoped might get you to walk in the door instead of walking by. Department stores don't typically cover the ground from Neiman Marcus to Wal-Mart with Macy's in the middle, which is what IS is more like now, with Agency through the Dollar Bin. If you look at amazon.com (to cite but one example of this sort of search interface in an online store), when you look at home theatre systems, there are search panels on the left that let you search by brand, by watts, by price (with a list of set ranges and then a from and to text entry field where you specify your price range), rating, etc.. I'm not sure why this successful business model for online shopping is one that Getty/iStock disdain. It seems to be working pretty well for amazon. This isn't the 1920s where we're trying to appeal to the carriage trade and keep out the riff raff. Have a premium collections landing page (in addition to photos, illos, video, etc.) so that the high end buyers can be directed to start there and never have to see those of us who don't play in that rarefied atmosphere; put a full range of on off switches (and let preferences be saved) so buyers can search as their needs dictate. I am truly convinced that they can still flog the high price stuff successfully even if they allow buyers to chose not to look at it. It seems like insanity not to let buyers choose and have them take their business elsewhere out of frustration.
6529
« on: April 14, 2011, 11:20 »
when you say "regular" that means non vetta and agency only or is it also non-exlusive plus?
regular = not (Vetta or Agency). So regular would include all independent, E+, exclusive.
6530
« on: April 14, 2011, 11:18 »
The seller was asked about expiration dates, which he said was 2 years from the transfer, but I'd have thought it was 2 years from the purchase date - the original purchase date. Given the seller has been offering these deals for months and one poster claimed he'd gone back for more credits, this can't have been one bulk purchase that was being sold off over time. If that were the case, there'd be less and less time remaining on these credits. If it isn't some scummy employee taking credits he payed nothing for, I can't see how you can sell for less than half price and make any money on the deal. I guess as FT has payments to contributors at a fixed rate, not at a percentage of whatever the buyer paid, this is a scam that doesn't directly hurt the people whose images were purchased unless FT voids all the sales. I don't remember seeing anything quite like this before in the various scams that have come up. I guess the criminal mind is ever inventive
6531
« on: April 14, 2011, 09:53 »
What's different today in number of regular images in the first page (200) of photos only (with thanks to a test version of one of Sean's greasemonkey scripts that means I don't have to count these  Search term Reg 4/12 Reg 4/14 fish* 9 11 senior couple 20 30 woman shopping 31 36 tropical beach 12 15 spa treatment 39 44 woman eating 21 31 woman laptop 30 41 man portrait 26 35 doctor 37 45 swimming pool 13 19 summer outdoors 29 35 child outdoors 36 43 sexy woman 9 12 * both food and animal meanings So there is a small difference, but if you aren't a flaming image, you're not on the first page of search results in the "regular" section
6532
« on: April 13, 2011, 20:20 »
Lisa - from my understanding, that's not how the regional results work. your comment makes a big ( and I believe incorrect) assumption about how the regional sort works. there was a thread in the iStock forum in which the way it will work was described in detail.
I don't recall that - only some vague examples about showing the right nationality if "flag" was used as a search term. Do you have a link to the details?
6533
« on: April 13, 2011, 17:23 »
It's a strain to find something positive about microstock, but about photography in general, I love it when I can go back to a time, place and feeling by looking at a picture I've taken - sort of a poor man's space time machine. As it's cold and wet and thoroughly icky in Western Washington at the moment, my recent images from the Turks & Caicos are a lovely place to which to be transported
6534
« on: April 13, 2011, 15:19 »
... First thing copy and paste the full header of the email you received into this web site to find out where the person is located that you sent you the email:
http://www.iptrackeronline.com/header.php
Thanks for posting that link - that's very helpful.
6535
« on: April 12, 2011, 23:58 »
Some really stunning work there!
6536
« on: April 12, 2011, 19:30 »
have any of you actually performed test searches? it doesn't sound like it. I've searched on all my test search terms. each search has returned a solid MIX of files.
Yes, I have searched. Many of the terms have a huge disparity in the first one or two pages - masses of Vetta Agency, lots of it with few or zero sales. Examples: 20 regular files in the first 400 for fish; 20 regular files out of 200 for senior couple; 31 regular of 200 for woman shopping; 12 of 200 for tropical beach; spa treatment 39 of 200; woman eating 21 of 200; woman laptop 30 of 200; man portrait 26 of 200; doctor 37 of 200; swimming pool 13 of 200; summer outdoors 29 of 200; child outdoors 36 of 200; sexy woman 9 of 200. These aren't a mix, certainly not a solid one. When you consider the small proportion of the 8 million images that are Vetta/Agency, the disproportionate weight becomes overwhelming
6537
« on: April 12, 2011, 09:45 »
Someone posted in the IS Help forum in the bug thread.
6538
« on: April 12, 2011, 09:36 »
if you perform a best match search on any major keyword like 'business', 'family', 'Christmas', 'summer' etc., the best match returns are a mix of images with the first images predominantly from diamonds. also on the first page, early on in the results are plenty of images from black diamonds. so far I have not performed any search that corroborates a theory in which lower canisters seem to be favoured in best match to increase profits.
I haven't done a ton of searches, but I didn't see anything radically upended in the best match results on the few I did, so I'll grant you it weakens any argument that they're trying to push bronze/silver with Vetta/Agency. Another possible explanation is that buyers have taken to heart the suggestion (that I've seen over and over again in the forums from kelvinjay and pink_cotton_candy) to set your results to 200 per page and skip over the first page or two to get past Vetta and Agency. That would also skip over a lot of good sellers that do get mixed in with the premium collections. When you look at the number of high performers who are seeing really large drops it's hard to see this as ebb and flow. Perhaps tomorrow we'll all get e-mail saying that they were unfortunately not reporting sales correctly and we've all actually had successive best weeks ever
6539
« on: April 12, 2011, 00:43 »
If they're trying to boost profits, it would make sense to demote the files of exclusive diamonds. The top couple of hundred contributors probably account for more than 50% of sales and most likely get 40% commission. If they can divert half those sales to people on 30% commission it would boost iStock's overall cash share by about 4%.
If 40% of the money they take gets spent keeping things running, a 4% increase in income would become a 10% increase in actual profits. That's an awful lot of extra cash to make for a tiny little search engine tweak. It's also something that can be done to keep profits on track (and guarantee management bonuses) if buyers are drifting away.
I've certainly given consideration to the idea that they're deliberately trying to favor select groups of content - Vetta/Agency because the price is high and the royalty lower and lower-royalty bearing exclusive content. Some of the Vetta contributors have been seeing huge drops in sales (although I did note one admin who has a lot of Vetta was happy about March being a BME) so I don't know if that fits that pattern. I was wondering if that would mean a boost for independents, but although royalty rates are lower, so are prices, which means IS might still favor bronze exclusives to make the most. Take an XS file (1 credit independent, 2 exclusive). Assume a $1 credit price. For a 40% exclusive, IS makes $1.20, for a 25% exclusive $1.50 and an independent, 80 cents. If I weren't worried about driving away buyers and bigger contributors, I might make the search engine favor the 25% (bronze) exclusive content.
6540
« on: April 11, 2011, 22:05 »
...it REALLY bothers me to see how they are populating the front page lightboxes.... if contributor confidence and community spirit is still of concern around iStock, one action that would help restore my confidence would be to see an even distribution of contributors represented in these showcase lightboxes.
There's evidence in many places of rampant favoritism - a small group favoring one another and claiming that it's image superiority that justifies the special treatment. Those who can self inspect even if the rest of exclusives are waiting 10 days; huge Vetta presence when some of the largest are those supposedly impartial "judges". The lightboxes could really be something fun and designer centered, but that's not what's happening. There's no transparency in the process anywhere - not in our sales data, the criteria for all the special perks (Vetta, Agency, front page lightboxes). There's no appeals process for anything except for Scout - if you don't like it you can leave. It's Vetta because we say it is and we won't discuss it. In light of all these things, I'm not sure what you could expect from complaining. The last time Lobo berated a group of us for complaining in the Help forum about a problem when we hadn't opened support tickets, I went and opened a bunch of support tickets, one for each problem. They all got closed with a note from customer service that I should use the forums like I'd been told and not open support tickets. Someone wittier than me said that they could tell everyone to eff off and still be doing a better customer service job than IS. That about sums it up for me. They're taking from 60% to 85% of the gross and throwing themselves a party in London while the site limps along with thumbnails in the wrong color space, no e-mails for CR tickets or acceptances, a pile of search and site functionality bugs, a my_uploads page that would be unusable were it not for Sean's greasemonkey script...etc. Back on topic, I thought that we might by now have seen the promised guidance on what to shoot (like the Getty Creative Research newsletters) - was that before Christmas that they promised that? I think it's a nice idea to tell us what sort of editorial they see as most needed, but there wasn't a lot of detail and the lightbox didn't seem to reflect the topics that were in demand (i.e. was more about spotlighting things they thought were cool than focusing on the areas they were telling us we would do well to focus on in our editorial submissions).
6541
« on: April 11, 2011, 12:12 »
See the info on Adobe's site here. It's an intriguing thought that someone who had intermittent needs for Photoshop (or for the latest version if they didn't have it) might be able to get it for $49 a month every now and then. What I don't get is why you'd pay $420 a year for a Photoshop subscription versus buying it. Perhaps the notion is that with the upgrade price every 18 months or so it isn't such a bad deal? I'm sure most folks here already own Photoshop, but I wonder who they're expecting will sign up for this? And does this mean that they're having a hard time flogging their overpriced upgrades?
6542
« on: April 11, 2011, 11:36 »
did anyone report this to any of the stock sites? I'm thinking of sending it in to compliance enforcement at istock. I know that they work on squashing this sort of thing - it takes them awhile but they have followed through on issues I had when I found my images used illegally. i would bet that if the Vetta and Agency files were being stolen they would jump on it pretty quick.
I thought about it, but it didn't mention specific images - I'm not sure that discussing how to commit this theft is something IS can go after. Now if these geniuses would care to post the images they swiped...
6543
« on: April 11, 2011, 10:28 »
looks to me like tineye is designed to steal images ...sort order - biggest size... 1700 pixels on the long side, linkdirect to the image so you dont even have to open the webpage.
I'm not sure how each agency's agreement reads, but I believe IS updated theirs a while ago to permit up to 1024 pixels on the longest side on a web page, so images that large would be violating IS's agreement anyway. Not saying the theft issue goes away, but the smaller the image, the lower the value the thieves are able to snap up. What I find pretty ballsy is that they feel quite comfortable discussing theft openly - as if they were discussing where to get coupons or the best deal on a car.
6544
« on: April 10, 2011, 20:56 »
Wow, the thought entered my mind about becoming non-exclusive from Istock and then I see stuff like this.
If you have any thoughts at all about doing that, and any notion of contributing to Fotolia, then you need to be quiet about them in public or they will ban you (as they did me, albeit after I left to become an iStock exclusive; they just threatened me with closing my account beforehand). I think I was seen as a troublemaker for coordinating efforts to hold off uploading after their initial lowball offer when they started subscriptions (with no opt out).
6545
« on: April 10, 2011, 14:39 »
I found some hugely amusing quotes in fotolianews (pointed to by Andy's blog) From 8 reasons for Fotolia Microstock: "7. Supports The Arts The world would only be shades of gray without the Arts. By paying for images, youre helping photographers and illustrators earn a living. We need them." I'm not sure if that makes me feel like photographers are the equivalent of those starving kids in famine relief ads or if the irony of multiple commission reductions and royalty level increases is lost on FT's PR department. And then there's the lovely revisionist history in How it Works"Fotolia is the first worldwide social marketplace for royalty free stock images, allowing individuals and professionals to legally buy and share stock images and illustrations." I'm guessing that FT is drawing a distinction with IS on the basis of "worldwide" because FT was the first to internationalize their web site, but IS was selling worldwide before FT was even though they only localized their site after FT showed they could gain market share that way. And I know SS was pretty early with doing translated versions of their site, but I don't remember if they followed FT or beat them to it. I think it'd be a good idea for some FT contributors to inquire of them if the contributor is compensated for these promotional freebies - fine if FT wants to foot the bill, but is there anything in the contract that allows them to just give away images from the paid section? And the march of anti-contributor cash grabs marches on. I didn't see anything in FT's blog or press release section. Have they told contributors about this "opportunity"?
6546
« on: April 08, 2011, 16:45 »
Some things get deleted - I quoted from a recent FT ad which referenced the occupying force in France during WWII (n*a*z*i*s) and the forum deleted that word.
It doesn't expand IS to iStock, neither does ISP - does anything?
The only think I don't like about the expansion is that it makes learning the shorthand harder (for those of us who type in two or three letter abbreviations, it got learned prior to the forum getting so smart). It certainly does cut down on the "what does xxx mean" questions though.
6547
« on: April 08, 2011, 14:36 »
... This in the week that I get POTW!  ...
Congrats on that - I hadn't noticed (I never see the Photos landing page; it's such a shame they moved it there). I hate to use the word irony as it always elicits lots of comments about its misuse, but I think it's ironic that your sales tank as you are featured - sort of "take that you b#st*rd!!" Perhaps it will get better next week, but absolutely nothing from admins along the lines of "we're working on trying to fix it". I'm trying to flesh out plan B just in case
6548
« on: April 08, 2011, 14:32 »
Normally I could tell you, but I'm not uploading at the moment until they sort out the problems with new content ending up at the back of the best match bus. I don't see anything today in the DeepMeta threads in the Tools/Apps forum - perhaps you want to post there (soon, before Franky goes to bed
6549
« on: April 08, 2011, 10:12 »
So Thursday was double Wednesday, but given that Wednesday was about 10% of a good day, that still leaves Thursday at 20% of a good day and today's not looking any better so far.
I think it's "Sudden Portfolio Death" syndrome as Mike noted earlier.
If this is how things are going to be from now on, the decision to move to independence makes itself. Dropping 80% to 90% of your sales is a big push out the door - which is perhaps what they're after anyway. Mid-level folks like me are just expensive - they want Sean's and Yuri's and lots of cheap newbies...
6550
« on: April 08, 2011, 01:58 »
So if you look at this thread there is some discussion and a link to thread 253532 and that thread is apparently gonzo. I can find this thread which says: "For the remainder of 2010, Vectors will be removed from the Vetta Collection and added back into the Exclusive collection under the Elaborate category (at the same price point). We have a bigger plan in the works for Vectors and will be telling you more about this in the months to come. " Even using the wayback machine, all I can see is the title of the thread you have a link to. It was the FAQ for the Sept 7th announcements that was sticky for a while. Not sure how long this link will function, but here is what Google had cached for this thread.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|