|
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
6551
« on: April 07, 2011, 15:45 »
Whatever the customers are seeing, wherever they are, they sure aint seeing my files today, again :-(
I just can't fathom how two mid-week days can be like the worst weekend ever. Suddenly my portfolio is either invisible or undesirable. Given the depth of the trough I'm in, I hope someone's having a good day! Yesterday was about 1/10th of a good day and 1/7 of a typical day and today looks about the same - truly pitiful.
6552
« on: April 06, 2011, 14:45 »
today notwithstanding as it's weird again right now.
Truth about best match is that we like it when it pleases us and think there is definitely something wrong when it doesn't.
That's only part of the truth. After you've been selling somewhere for a number of years, and if you have a medium to large-ish portfolio, you get a sense of a typical sales level and monthly peaks and valleys through the year. When things are like the weekends during the week, but only on some days of the week (and there's no holiday to explain that) it's reasonable to say that there's something odd going on. It's true that sometimes you can take advantage of some weirdness - in 2008 there was a patch where new files dominated the search results, so I uploaded some images from a prior trip that I hadn't processed as fast as I could to take advantage of that. I didn't complain when it stopped as it was obviously not the ideal way to present things to the buyer. Nothing stays the same long enough, at the moment, for us even to attempt anything of that sort. It is also true that people with more years represented in their portfolio can occasionally see some good from these best match train wrecks - an old image gets sales because it temporarily gets some exposure. What I like is some sort of consistency and predictability.
6553
« on: April 06, 2011, 11:24 »
Anyone heard of evostock before? Sounds like the collective is already underway.
http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/04/05/new-getty-contract-met-with-apathy/#comments
Just for yucks I did a search for tropical beach. There were 150 or so very underwhelming images. I did a search on IS for the same phrase and there were over 56K photos, many of which were stunners. I did the same search on SS and there were over 116K photos, again with many stunners. A search for woman office produced just 47 results, many of which were of someone SCUBA diving - spam is everywhere! At IS there were over 48K photos, the whole first page (200) of which were actually women in offices. At SS over 136K photos with all of the first page (100) non-spammed results. If these folks are going to make a go of a site like this, they need some great content, not a lot of blather about how professional they are.
6554
« on: April 06, 2011, 09:55 »
Well I normally have around 15-20 dls just in the first two hours in the morning (european) time, yesterday, 4 and this morning 2. yet, Im pretty favored in this present best match, most relevant searches in my categories will show plenty om my pics on first two pages, great! and yet hardly anything....
I'm on Pacific Time, so when I get up, Europe's day is nearly over. This morning there was just one sale overnight - like a weekend, not a Wednesday. Things are very erratic. The big thing I still don't have in focus is what on earthy possessed them to start messing with this in the first place? This nonsense about local relevance? And to do this while they still have a huge pile of unfixed bugs just seems crazy (I'd want to test changes in small doses and on an otherwise working system, not just keep on randomly tweaking this and that hoping I'll get something that looks good).
6555
« on: April 05, 2011, 19:24 »
...
2) you're directly attempting to hurt fellow contributors who are exclusives at the agency you are working to pull business away from. and your seeming disregard for this is compounded by the fact that you're still collecting income from iStock despite actively pushing buyers away from iStock
...
This is truly illogical. If Lisa contributes to 10 agencies and chooses to direct buyers to one of the ten (for whatever reason; it could be she's close to a new royalty level there, or it could be her best earner or it could be that she knows the buyer is price conscious and that agency is the cheapest) she's not trying to hurt those who don't have a portfolio there. And it's fine to do business with companies that you hate, loathe and despise - if I didn't, I wouldn't have a bank, a cell phone company or a cable company. I have at various times worked for or done business with companies that I couldn't stand; companies that I wouldn't lift a finger to help because they'd behaved so badly to their customers or employees. This is just part of the ugly truth of adult life. I've chosen to be an exclusive with iStock and I completely get other contributors acting in their own interests and that their interests aren't mine. As I pointed out in an earlier post in another thread, sometimes iStock is the cheapest place to buy images from independents, especially those from top sellers like Lisa or Yuri. If you were a volume buyer of images, a SS subscription might be the best deal rather than IS. I don't mind anyone pointing these things out to buyers, for whatever reason. In the long run, I think someone who gives a buyer bad advice on purpose out of spite will only be hurting themselves (they'll lose all credibility), so I don't suppose that person could do IS or anyone else much harm anyway. We don't have to pass some sort of morality test to collect our weekly earnings from IS - we only have to produce and upload images that sell. Heaven protect me from some sort of regime that you can't collect earnings from IS unless you post at least 50 woo yays a week or refer 10 buyers or...
6556
« on: April 05, 2011, 17:25 »
...I am still wondering if they are instituting an official policy that nobody can leave. ...
It's not that you can't leave - there are termination clauses in the agreement - but that you can't remove selected images during the term of the agreement and still keep contributing. The all-or-nothing approach. Originally the contract I signed (but never uploaded any content under) was for 3 years with automatic one year renewals and a 60 day notice for termination. The new contract says they're reducing the termination notice on the conributor side to 90 days, so I assume for "real" Getty photographers, not iStockers, the old contract was something longer.
6557
« on: April 05, 2011, 16:38 »
I am math literate, but not very well schooled in the slight of hand practiced in the financial markets. I came upon this article from last November about some game Hellman & Friedman played to "pay themselves $500 million" in connection with their Getty acquisition. Here is a definition of dividend recapitalization. And here is an explanatory article (that guy with bundles of cash has got to be a stock image!). If I understand this right, H&F wanted some return from all the money they sank into Getty and borrowed to get it. Here is a WSJ blog about the subject (though not about H&F specifically) from September 2010, referring to this as a "partial exit" for the financial firms. If someone out there gets all this stuff, perhaps they could shed some light for us, but it appears to me that the outright theft of cash from contributors announced by IS last September could be part of H&F squeezing Getty (and thus IS) for cash because they couldn't cash out (i.e. sell). One of the article notes that it's good news if your company is subject to one of these dividend recaps as it's only the companies the finance folks are sure will sell for more later that these are done for. Oh Wonderful!!
6558
« on: April 05, 2011, 12:21 »
I've been reading the Getty contributor forum discussions about this contract change and there are a lot of unhappy folks. Couple of things I noted
1) The rate schedule for Getty contributors strong-armed into Thinkstock sales pays less than gold and up exclusives at IS make (40 cents for subscriptions which is what the 30%/silver royalty rate pays for IS)
2) Unsold RM images can be sold at RF at Getty's discretion after 3 years without a sale. Contributors may not remove their images if they don't like it and they can't opt out. The moderator is trying to make the argument that very few people want to opt out but also that it would be an untenable situation for Getty to have to remove images if contributors requested it.
3) The forced move to RF applies even to Photographer's Choice images - ones that contributors paid to place
4) Getty's trying to be all encouraging and understanding in their moderator's attitude, but they aren't interested in changing anything based on contributor feedback. I can't imagine why they started forums at all (they said it was because of the positive experiences with Flickr, whatever that means). Moderator: "...it is each contributors choice to accept or decline the business terms." Unhappy contributor: "...Yes, of course. I don't think anyone is unclear on that point. But please forgive us for noticing the slap in the face with Getty's "all or nothing" approach. Many of us are uncomfortable with a few points in the new contract and for good reason. Rather than give contributors some simple options on how and where their work is sold, Getty prefers to lose a certain percentage of contributors and their images. ..."
5) Sean got his whatsit whapped (gently) by the moderator who initially said how great it was to have someone from microstock participating in the discussions and then told him to stop talking about all the gnarly issues raised by this new agreement as he wasn't sticking to the topic at hand. Moderator: "Sean, I am asking again that you please stay on the topic of contributor topics only. The IP team, workflow and agreements are not part of this section of the site or forum, or a vast majority of our forum members' business. On top of that, the information you are posting about this initiative is inaccurate and speculative so it is really just confusing things and drawing attention away from the issues at hand." Wouldn't want to inform the masses - they might get restless.
Really feels like velvet glove/iron fist.
6559
« on: April 04, 2011, 22:34 »
Given the overall lack of competence in iStock's IT crew, I don't think they could implement a contributor-specific targeting scheme even if they wanted to.
In spite of my negative opinion of iStock's recent behavior, I don't think they would try to retaliate against vocal critics. I do think the clubby atmosphere around Vetta (an "in" group that has way more Vetta images than seem warranted) has created an oligarchy that is why we don't see the ability to filter out Vetta and Agency, but that's not the same thing as shuffling problem contributors to the back.
I've seen lots and lots of best match shifts and it can be very tempting to read more into what's happening than is really there.
The big, big worry is that in their lust for soaking the customers they'll drive too many of them away. I don't think they're currently presenting a good mix of results, but I'm hoping they'll keep "tweaking" some more and improve it.
6560
« on: April 03, 2011, 07:10 »
Looks like we'll get a vector conference call 
Good luck with that. I hope those on the call keep a clear head about the string of broken promises of late - the words are always sweet the night before...
6561
« on: April 02, 2011, 21:13 »
...If so, can you tell me what the down side is, because it looks good from my perspective.
I fit the category of "doesn't contribute there" (any more) but I do find the recent price hikes puzzling. I like the idea of level 0 pricing to encourage buyers to take a chance on a new file, although I don't see why the royalty rate has to be less on the lower priced items. What I find a puzzle is that the very small sizes of the very popular files will now be a ton more expensive than just about anywhere else. Doesn't that effectively push buyers to go elsewhere for these (except for exclusive to DT files)? IOW, price increases are fine when buyers pay them, but if an XS costs 11 credits at DT but 1 credit at IS and 2 at FT (is emerald 2 or 3 for XS?) I can't imagine people paying such a premium. The larger sizes seem to be closer to what you'd pay at other sites. Perhaps I'm missing something...
6562
« on: April 02, 2011, 07:18 »
...Looks split between very good months and very bad months with a few in the middle. I'm guessing the ones that had the WMEs lost a lot from a % drop this year.
And then there are the people who don't post. I have the same royalty rate (35%) as last year in March but my earnings were $200 less. Downloads were down as well. The site's erratic performance and many bugs probably make that a pretty respectable result in the circumstances, but I'm still not happy. The people who are having great months will be attributing it to their great images, and that will continue until they experience one of those cold showers that a best match shift can bring about. I've given up posting on IS unless I need something specific (like in the editorial forum). Nothing IS says has any credibility anyway - even if they mean it when they post it,they can (and have) done the exact opposite whenever it suits them.
6563
« on: April 01, 2011, 19:35 »
Well, if subscriptions are what all buyers want, why is istock still around??
Why didnt all the buyers go to shutterstock? A long time ago?
Because there was a set of images exclusive to IS that many buyers valued. That and the patina of goodness attached to being the first and the market leader. A lot of SS vectors are total schlock (there's some great stuff there too, granted); at one time IS was the premiere place for a great collection of higher end (more elaborate) vectors. And Thinkstock isn't just subscriptions. IS said that's all it would be when they first talked it up, but they had the "coming soon" for image packs almost from the very beginning. The issue is what is your competitive advantage. IS has in the past not competed on price, but used the exclusive collection as a reason to get buyers to the site. They obviously need to have a good chunk of the images that are at other sites as well so they can be a one-stop-shop for many. All this movement of exclusive IS content elsewhere is slowly eroding the primary reason people went to IS. Perhaps in the future the only exclusive (sort of) content will be Vetta & Agency (but those can be had at Getty, photos.com, etc. etc. as well). I understand the notion of "to each his own" but exclusives who are selling their work at places other than IS are having an impact on all exclusives, not just on themselves. It's killing the goose that laid the golden egg, but people get blinded by the shine off the gold...
6564
« on: April 01, 2011, 16:45 »
I don't see this as good news at all.
I've been expecting IS to force all exclusives into the PP at some point, and as I've said many times I think the partner program is part of the program to drive our royalties to a maximum of 20%. We get no RC for sales at sites other than IS and although Getty was marketing Thinkstock as if all the IS content was there already (which it wasn't), once all the IS exclusive content is available at Thinkstock, why would anyone buy at IS any more?
You can buy credit packs at Thinkstock. If you buy a subscription there you get 25% off at Getty (I think that offer's still good). IS exclusives get a pittance (compared to what we'd get for a sale at IS).
The fact that different images sell has to do with differences in default sort order and such, much more so than this myth of a different market or different buyers.
I loathe the RC system, but while it's our ticket to next year's royalties, we should be alert to all efforts by Getty to move sales to places that don't give us RCs for sales.
I realize this isn't yet a move to change things for IS exclusives, but if they're doing this for Getty photographers, why wouldn't they to IS exclusives?
6565
« on: March 30, 2011, 20:32 »
If I search by contributor, I can see his whole portfolio, but if you click on any image you get a 404 error and if you click on his user name you go back to the iStock home page. I can't quite believe that such a long association could just be over like that - if it was the tutorial issue that triggered it.
Does he have a blog or any other web presence?
6566
« on: March 29, 2011, 14:02 »
I don't think they will be inclined to back down either, but they'll have a hard time launching Vetta for video or illustration with so much of their top tier of content opted out (the video folks got all or alll but one of the diamonds, I think).
Perhaps they'll get lucky and find a few very talented and productive newbies to fill the store shelves of Vetta/Video/Vector? If not, this spring will turn into this year and it'll end up like logos - on some back burner somewhere.
6567
« on: March 29, 2011, 13:48 »
0% PP - for exclusives, it is your ticket to 20% maximum royalty in the future.
0% Getty. I realize the money is in some cases more (if you discount those sales through distributors or the 20% of a $5 sale that somehow comes out to 91 cents using iStock math) but again, it's a sucker's game if you hope to continue to earn more than 20% for RF sales. My take on this is that Getty hopes that the allure of saying you sell via Getty plus the larger prices ($525 for a XXXL Agency image) will get people to say yes.
No RCs for either of these outlets, which means it'll be harder to maintain (or increase) your royalty for IS sales. That cycle plays out a few times and you're stuck with the 20% royalty sites plus 25% at IS assuming they keep exclusivity once they've migrated most of the business away from there.
If you don't think you'll be selling microstock in a couple more years, grabbing whatever cash while you can might make sense. Otherwise you're just selling out your future for a small amount of cash today.
6568
« on: March 26, 2011, 18:06 »
The tools forum is where the DeepMeta betas/finals are announced - here. There's also discussion there when things aren't working (because of iStock API problems or DeepMeta or whatever). I'm not sure how I initially found out about Deep Meta changes to support editorial - might have been in the editorial forum? IS really isn't good at keeping track of important pieces of information buried on the site and forum search is largely useless. A google search does somewhat better.
6569
« on: March 26, 2011, 15:34 »
I upload to iStock using DeepMeta. I thought I would give editorial a try. I don't see any way to designate the image as Editorial??? Would someone please point me in the right direction?
You have to be using 1.5 of Deep Meta, but in the general tab there, there's a check box for Editorial.
6570
« on: March 25, 2011, 10:54 »
SS and IS also have ads in Photoshop User, although I'm not a huge fan of either of them. SS's ad features "telekentic cats" - to me they look as if they have knitting needles stuck through their eyes and it's very creepy. Apparently these cats live at Shutterstock according to the headline. "Picture it found" is the tag at the bottom, but I can't see past the knitting needles. IS's ad is "Your world, our stock." but the world that's the background is some ornate, huge, dark room in a mansion which doesn't represent anything I'd want to live in, let alone do. The screaming kids on the floor apparently aren't discouraging the heavily pregnant woman on the other side from running in panic away from her balding sugar daddy. The couple with a can of white paint and a ladder haven't apparently started repainting this gloomy room, but perhaps they're too busy sneaking glances at the bimbo by the Christmas tree. I hope designers love this stuff; doesn't do much for me
6571
« on: March 24, 2011, 17:47 »
Has anyone really mentioned what they want out of a union? Isn't that supposed to be the first question you ask yourself when seeking any sort of representation. It would be interesting to see how far apart or close everyone is. I'll go first. My demands are:
1. 50% or higher royalties
2. A lowest price cap of $5
3. Royalties for subs starting at $1
So there's a thorny topic in the making I think some talk of fairness has been bandied about, but otherwise not much in the way of specifics. Mostly the issues have been specific unfair moves on the part of agencies, for example: Various agencies (DT, FT and IS come readily to mind) cutting contributor royalty rates Fotolia's currency games with you getting paid in one currency even though they get paid in others. IS briefly had a fling with currency games over credit purchases but backed off after people complained. Various subscription pricing complaints. I'm less concerned with a specific royalty percentage than with the overall notion of contributors sharing equally in the growth with agencies. We've had agencies paying more than 50% but without sales, that's meaningless to contributors. Investing heavily in marketing, sales, site infrastructure (particularly a stellar search engine) is something that benefits me, the contributor, in the long term. Putting money into H&F's bank account has no value to me whatever and is akin to H&F stopping by my house to steal the carpet and the drapes. I have very negative views of subscriptions unless they limit sizes, have different prices to include vectors or other higher priced items, so I'd be less interested in a minimum price than in ensuring a vector or XXXL image didn't cost the same as a blog sized image. The other thing that I don't much like about the SS model of subscription (in spite of how well it does) is that the more money contributors make, the less the agency makes. Seems to me that long run things work better when agency & contributor interests are better aligned. I wouldn't be interested in a minimum price - seems too limiting and doesn't stop agencies from doing ridiculous things such as insisting that all icon sets will now be 64 icons instead of 16 while keeping the minimum price. I guess for me I want an agency that wants to stay in the business for the long term (i.e. not a get rich quick scheme), has enough cash to invest to grow the business without turning to investors (who will strip the business and ruin it) and where the principals have enough business experience to be competent running the place.
6572
« on: March 24, 2011, 16:14 »
.... The Writers Guild of America always win when they choose to take a stand, unite and put down their pencils until their demands are met.
This is slightly OT, but I don't think that the the Writers Guild has always had such clear cut success. See articles here, here, here... It's not that I'm in any way unsympathetic to the goals of the WGA, but the point in several of those articles is that in a sense you've already lost by the time you go on strike and that the glut of reality TV garbage that graces US airwaves is in part a result of some of the "win" in the 2007 writer's strike.
6573
« on: March 24, 2011, 11:05 »
I don't have a list - but I do have a similar problem. I like having my little FoxClocks globe at the bottom of the browser, so I can check what time it is in other countries at any point in the day (particularly when an image just sold). Not yet compatible with Firefox 4, and I'd miss it too much.
I also have FoxClocks with several time zones with flags across the bottom of my window - obviously I lived without it before and probably could again, but I think I'll just wait a bit as I can't see much of a reason to upgrade. Faster is good, but as I've never been bothered by Firefox's speed, that's not compelling. Couldn't care less about Google Gears - I tried it for a couple of days when iStock introduced it and there were so many problems I just uninstalled it.
6574
« on: March 24, 2011, 10:51 »
I just noticed that the auto-edit features of our bulletin board edited out a word "...sixteenth century building once occupied by nah-ts-ees." Referring to the occupying force in France during World War II.
I guess the original word is considered offensive enough for Leaf to auto-edit it out, but OK for Fotolia's ad. Perhaps Photoshop User doesn't sell in Germany?
6575
« on: March 23, 2011, 22:37 »
The question is: does that change things for us for the better or for the worse (or for no change at all)?
On the assumption that advertising and marketing programs worked - brought in new business or increased spending from existing customers or... - I'd say it's not good if they aren't spending to market the site and our work. Given that they're taking an even larger share of the pie than in 2010, they should be spending more and aggressively marketing the site, but I don't have any way of measuring what they're doing now against before to say it is a change or if so, by what amount. They've never been transparent about any aspect of the business, so we don't know much about what they used to do or are now doing.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
