|
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
6676
« on: February 25, 2011, 15:52 »
...Non profit comes across as a negative connotation now in days in the US.
I'd take a slightly different tack - I don't disagree entirely, but I'd say it this way. There's a lawn treatment service that promotes how it's in harmony with nature and doesn't use any chemical pesticides. There are also the traditional services that advertise how great your lawn will look. As a consumer, if the first thing you tell me isn't how well you do your job, or how great my xxx will look after you do your thing, I'm not as interested in your company. I may very well pick a company in the end that uses organic materials, but if you don't promise me good results and only tell me yarns about how you do what you do, the message I take away is that you're asking me to compromise - Accept this less nice looking lawn 'cause you'll feel good about how you didn't trash the planet. Back to the coop or non-profit. Tell me your great tasting coffee is fair trade and I'm all ears. Drone on with a lecture about the hardships and politics of the coffee trade and I'll wander off to get some coffee to swallow my aspirin with. You have to focus on the buyer first and the fact that they're being fair to artists second. I don't think co-ops or non-profits have a negative connotation, but being nagged or given a political message when you wanted to do some business does.
6677
« on: February 25, 2011, 14:46 »
I think the issue with your experiment is that there are too many variables - many of which you can't even measure, let alone control.
March is typically an outstanding month. Default search results order (best match, relevance, etc.) gets periodically changed or tweaked. Seasonal trends affect what is purchased - if you have an existing body of strong work in some seasonal category, quitting uploading during the month that stuff sells best is going to affect your results. Some sites (SS) have sales that take off quickly after uploading; others (IS) may build more slowly and last longer.
And what would you do about your answer when you get it? Let's say that some sites do penalize time off more heavily than others - if you've created illustrations, how does it benefit you not to upload them? If you haven't, what difference does knowing the effect of not uploading make?
6678
« on: February 25, 2011, 10:48 »
It's apparently been offline since Jan 29th after a brief period working before that - see here for more.
6679
« on: February 25, 2011, 10:38 »
As I'm still exclusive, I won't be participating at the moment but I did take a look and thought I'd offer a couple of suggestions. I think this may not be much, but as long as the overhead is low, it can't hurt to give it a whirl. 1. Put something other than a flower picture up top. No cats, flowers or sunsets - you won't look serious. I know all of those sell, but I don't think it sends the right message as a banner. Perhaps if each participating site donated one banner and then you rotate through them? 2. Give the page a title to show up in the browser window - Untitled Document isn't all that catchy  3. Have a thumbnail picture, or small banner of a row of thumbs, with each agency - I want to see images. 4. Put a contact e-mail on the home page 5. Put purchase direct and save money as the first item 6. I think you need to address model releases and "safety". Saying something about all these portfolios have model released images that are fine for commercial use. Some people may be afraid they'll land up in the mess that some companies did when their agencies grabbed un-released images from Flickr (wasn't it Virgin?) 7. Consider a referral badge as well as a request to spread the word. I don't know what the code required would be to implement a scheme to give a small discount to referred customers on their first purchase (or first $xx) but that might be a thought.
6680
« on: February 24, 2011, 11:01 »
What boggles my mind is that people are thanking iStock for an 8 cent raise. Is my memory faulty, or didn't they recently CUT PP royalties? And now they are giving it back and people are woo-yaying? Classic iStockholm Syndrome. 
I don't think they changed PP royalties recently. There was the huge fuss when it was first announced and they changed the percentage system to the flat rate, but after that, I think it has stayed the same. If I were independent and opted in already I'd be happy to take the extra few cents, although I'd be more concerned to have the portal to get new content to the site actually working. If I were one of the exclusives who chose to opt in earlier, the extra money would be a plus, but not a big one. They didn't touch the 20% on "image pack" sales, I notice. With subscription sites the big thing is volume - SS has it and almost everywhere else doesn't. I watch the monthly threads where those in the PP report earnings, and it still seems pretty low numbers to me.
6681
« on: February 24, 2011, 02:33 »
I had photos in the Vetta collection until September. I opted out then because I did not want my content sold on Getty's sites (where it's a flat 20% and no RCs) and they would not permit contributors to opt out. Secondarily, I thought the price increase was outrageous.
I'm not sure what the rules will be for Illustrations and Video going to Getty (there is already an iStock Vectors collection on Getty Images), but I can't see opting in for Illustrations for me. I have a very small collection of illustrations at iStock and given the new rules about how RCs and royalties are calculated, I can't imagine I'll be creating any more stock illustrations.
6682
« on: February 24, 2011, 02:28 »
I was amazed to see something approaching a direct statement - that they want more content in the partner program than they currently have and a tacit admission that their lowball payout scheme has cost them that content. The pathetic offer of a small amount of additional cash changes nothing. Admitting that that they're willing to change things in contributors' favor should only encourage people to hold out for something decent. In spite of the fact that they're mandating 'lypse content (Japan and the April in London one) goes to the partner program, they haven't got to the flow of good new images they need to keep buyers happy. The risk would be that at some point they'd drop the opt out (like they did for Vetta/Agency on Getty). I'm fairly certain JJRD believes what he's saying, but even sincere nice people can be very wrong sometimes. They can believe that what they're being told by their management is true and pass it on. The fact remains that what's in Getty's best short term interests may not be in IS contributors' long term interests. H&F is a Carl Icahn-like entity that will happily cripple a business if they can get the cash they want in the process - they're not in it for the long haul. I urge anyone who is thinking about their stock portfolio's long term success to leave the partner program alone. That little bit of extra cash now is destructive to your ability to earn the same or higher royalty rate next year (no RCs for PP sales) and for independents is chipping away at the leader in microstock subs - SS. SS pays better (and lets you earn higher payouts the more you earn, something the PP does not) and while it may have skipped raises, hasn't shafted its contributors the way other sites have done. Starving the partner program sites of good content is the only way to get any changes in the terms offered.
6683
« on: February 22, 2011, 20:37 »
The sicker the humor, the more focused your audience needs to be - a billboard just isn't the place for something that dark. Not to mention the rather weak connection between a restaurant and a religious cult. So I think it misses on two levels.
We're like xxx with better drinks is a good idea, but it needs to be some reference that doesn't involve mass suicide.
6684
« on: February 22, 2011, 20:26 »
An expression from a while back in the tech field was "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM". What they meant was that when you went with the company perceived as the leader, even if things didn't work out, people wouldn't blame you for choosing them - you had picked the perceived number one.
Those perceptions do change over time, but I think that sometimes the Getty connection helps from a buyer point of view. Getty Images is a well known name and if you're looking for images on a budget, Getty's microstock site might well seem like a safe bet.
I've said repeatedly that I see the IS PP as a way Getty is trying to drive all commissions lower (once I'd have said down to 20%, but now it's down to 15% and I don't expect they'd raise 15% to 20% once they've done away with the parts of IS that cost them more than 20%). All that talk of different markets was transparent rubbish (clearly rammed home when they started marketing TS subscriptions on IS and marketing Image Packs (i.e. credits) on the TS main page to those who didn't want to commit to a subscription package.
I don't see any reason to help Getty any more than I can avoid in their march to lower my royalty rate. If I were independent again and the terms at TS made sense, I'd happily participate - it's just another site at that point. If I thought TS was damaging SS (at the moment I don't see any reason to think TS has taken off - why would there be all those discounts offered if that were the case?) and my SS royalties were better, I think I'd consider dropping TS.
When StockXpert content first went to photos.com (when Jupiter was independent and had bought StockXpert), it was because photos.com subscribers were ticked off that they didn't have enough new content. Subscription buyers won't put up (for long) with the same old pile of content. If enough of the bigger portfolios stay away from the sites that don't pay contributors enough, buyers will push for changes. Sites don't give a toss about contributors (any more - their collections are large and there are too many of us) but they will care if buyers aren't happy and aren't renewing their subscriptions.
6685
« on: February 21, 2011, 12:50 »
What I see for the link in your images is one to the image page, not to JPEG - e.g. http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=4548303If you use a form I have been for ages (which they don't generate any more, but fortunately so far have continued to honor) you get to pick the size: http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve.php?id=12054451&size=1You can see an example here. I don't use DeepMeta to generate my links as I want the link to be to a lightbox, but to show a selection of images, something it doesn't do, but UBB does. The unfortunate truth is that without a batch editing tool like DeepMeta to make changes a bit less work, we're at the mercy of iStock if they choose to break something that worked in the past. I guess I'll switch to DeepMeta when they break the form I use in UBB (but so far it's lasted since 2005)
6686
« on: February 21, 2011, 12:41 »
It's a shame that they've buried the featured photographer in the new design, but big congrats to Christian (and to his lovely wife who models so beautifully in their idyllic settings). I hope buyers see the photo landing page more than contributors do
6687
« on: February 21, 2011, 12:39 »
I don't think there's much to worry about for proving an image is yours if you shoot JPEG, however if you are worried, I read a while back that someone shaved off 5 pixels around the edges before submitting so they could show that anyone nabbing their uploads to claim as their originals was a fraud - they wouldn't have the extra 5 pixel border. And as far as selling RAW files, I'm in the wouldn't-even-consider-it camp. Even before DT started subscriptions, I didn't offer RAW files. I would consider selling high res 16 bit processed (layered) images for a higher price, but not the unprocessed file. It'd be like going out on a date with no makeup and in my gardening gear - no finish or polish
6688
« on: February 15, 2011, 19:18 »
Did you have any of the long delayed subscription downloads? They finally managed to get a script to run last night that added our past due balances. See the help forum thread for details.
It's not yet clear if this fixes the problem or just makes payments to date.
As far as EL's Sean's Greasemonkey scripts really help, but otherwise you can check your financials tab on the user_view.php page (should be sortable by date but I don't think they fixed that yet).
6689
« on: February 15, 2011, 19:16 »
Thanks Sean. So it is another Istockalypse then. Wooyay.
it's the magician's trick. don't look at all the things wrong over here.. look at the shiny, fun istockalypse! wooyay!
I used to get excited about these things and dream about attending something I could never afford. but now it's just feels like rubbing salt into my wounds. perhaps I'm still a little bitter over the whole royalty scheme fiasco.
I can completely get the bitterness. I still have a hard time letting go of what might have been, and when I consider the snail's pace at which fixes are coming and the number of unfinished or half baked things, the idea that anyone's spending a second organizing a shindig feels very much like rubbing salt into a wound. I've been dipping into the editorial forum looking to see how things are progressing, and that project seems in need of a ton of TLC to work out the details and get it started on solid footing. Very little admin input there - all work and no wooyays I did attend the iStockalypse HQ in August 2009 and it was a wonderful experience. I had thought that attending another would be a great idea, but even if I could have gone to Japan (I couldn't) the requirement that content go to the partner program even if you were opted out took that out of the running for me. I don't know if the same thing will be true for London, but with the Getty involvement, I expect it will. Seems rather strange to time it around the royal wedding - it'll just make hotel rooms harder to come by and more expensive. Unless one of the little surprises is a shoot with the royals
6690
« on: February 15, 2011, 01:05 »
As long as they don't send any developers and skip a 'lypse website, it should have no impact on their ongoing work to fix the broken web site.
I'd like the staff to wear T-shirts saying "Trip expenses paid for with cash transfer from iStock contributors"
It was that sort of talk that got me accused of trolling then Banned! 
I stick to MSG when I let my dry humour out of its cage
6691
« on: February 14, 2011, 14:43 »
I agree with bunhill. If IS wants to continue to raise their prices (nothing wrong with that, if they can sell the stuff) then they should take themselves out of the microstock market and start calling themselves a midstock agency. The problem is they want their cake and eat it too. They are continuing to brand their wares as microstock, but not at microstock prices. They get the buyers in under the premise that they are microstock, then try to shove midstock and trad agency prices down their throat. And the result? Exactly what is happening...buyers going somewhere else.
There's content on IS from 1 credit, up to lots of credits. All kinds of content. Just like Walmart sells crap tvs and expensive tvs. Etc.
The major problem at the moment, IMO, is not the presence of the higher priced collections but the inability for the buyer to choose what they want to look at. There is some numb skulled idea that if you just stick what you want (versus what the buyer wants) in front of them, you'll get buyers to fork out for the higher priced items. If you make buyers climb over the expensive TVs that you've used to hide the cheaper ones, at some point they'll consider trying stores that make it easier to find what they want. I do think it's feasible to have a range of price levels at one site (call it micro and mid if you like, but not sure it much matters) as long as you don't have the same isolated apple priced for $250 and $5 in different sections of the collection.
6692
« on: February 14, 2011, 12:59 »
Like I always say, if I've got designer tastes on an M&S budget, it won't do me any good whining to the designer shop!
Maybe the Dollar Bin should be a bit more 'visible'.
As long as Vetta, Agency, E+ and dollar bin can be separately searchable if desired, I think that the dollar bin might be a great way to handle the budget conscious buyer. Problems with it at the moment are many - no new content, prices are too high (I think there need to be a max of 3 price bands rather than the sizes matching the rest of the collections; given their programming challenges, they can keep all the same sizes, but XS & S are 1, M & L are 2, XL and up are 3 credits). If things that hadn't sold at all in 2 years (or even 3 years if 2 years is too short - things that stop selling, not just things that never sold) were moved to the dollar bin automatically and regularly, I think it'd be more interesting to buyers. Right now it's a forgotten place for the most part. I know there'd be a huge uproar from IS exclusives, but I think a sort order by price would be something buyers would value. I'd rather keep the buyers and take the risk that I might lose a sale or two by giving them the choice of an independent image over mine if they were really cash strapped for a particular project. I think that driving buyers away is a riskier move than letting them order searches the way they want.
6693
« on: February 13, 2011, 12:51 »
I last submitted to sites other than IS in August 2008, so my information on what they do regarding color profile conversions may be out of date - some other current independent can perhaps step in here.
However, don't go messing with your color to try and work around a problem with sites which don't read color profiles - if you do that, you'll trash the file for buyers.
If it is still the case that none of the sites do any automatic conversions of thumbnails from whatever profile the incoming JPEG is in (and it is important that you embed profiles in your JPEGs, especially if they're not sRGB), you should convert to sRGB JPEGs and upload that.
6694
« on: February 13, 2011, 02:09 »
RAW files are sensor data and don't have an embedded profile. RAW converters digest that sensor data and produce a file in some color space, but you get to choose which one as part of conversion. Some cameras (like my 5D Mk II) allow me to choose color space for JPEGs when produced in camera.
Lightroom's default is Profoto RGB internally for its renderings of imported RAW files, and when you export files (or edit them in Photoshop) you get to choose what color space you want delivered. Lightroom will do a profile conversion for you - nothing will look any different except if there are out of gamut colors in the image. So I always edit in Photoshop in Adobe RGB 16 bit and that's the conversion Lightroom does when I select Edit in Photoshop.
6695
« on: February 12, 2011, 14:19 »
As long as you have a color managed workflow - your devices profiled (especially your monitor) and all files containing an embedded color profile - it's not a huge deal to work in ProPhoto vs. AdobeRGB. The key thing is to ensure that you do embed a profile when you save files (and Save for Web and Devices in Photoshop doesn't embed a profile by default). When you get color problems it's typically because an image is in some color space other than sRGB and you're using a browser or other software that doesn't know how to read a profile. Google Chrome isn't profile aware, but Firefox and Safari are. There's a web site here where you can check your browser, and here where you can see if supports version 4 or only version 2 of ICC profiles. There is a difference in the color gamut (range of colors) that each of these color spaces supports - see here - but it's typically not a huge issue for most of the files you'll be submitting. I have been submitting in Adobe RGB since I went exclusive at IS because they support converting the thumbs to sRGB so they look good in all browsers. Before that I converted to sRGB JPEGs because they'd be handled OK by all the sites. Be clear about the difference between Assign Profile and Convert to Profile in Photoshop. If your image has a profile and you want to have it use a different one, use Convert to Profile. Nothing should change in how the image looks when you do this. If the image doesn't have a profile, use Assign Profile to tell it which one to use. It may change appearance (should look better if you got the right one!) when you do this.
6696
« on: February 12, 2011, 14:06 »
Still $0 royalties on all of my downloads in the last month. Anyone with the same experience?
No, but a bunch of us have problems with unpaid subscription sales (going back 2 to 3 weeks). We've been "nagging" in the help forum thread about getting a commitment on when we'll get paid (even if it's an interim step and they haven't yet fixed the bug). I suggest that you submit a report to customer relations if you haven't, post in the forum asking for a date by which you're going to get paid. The ASA says that iStock will "endeavor" upon written request to pay for content sold by the 15th of the following month. When they were dragging their feet over paying for the EL bonuses they withheld, I put into my 2nd CR ticket (they closed the first one pointing to the forum thread that said "we're working on it") that this was my written request for payment no later than the 15th of the following month. I did get the money, although it may have been a complete coincidence. Can't hurt to put your request in writing, however unnecessary that should be Don't let them fob you off with "known bug". They need to pay contributors even if they can't fix the bugs. Yes it's work to do that sort of thing manually, but those are the consequences of having a bunch of the site totally screwed up.
6697
« on: February 11, 2011, 21:18 »
If I went to a store and purchased an item, I'd be pretty upset if the store then shared my information with the item's manufacturer and they started bugging me. Lots of the privacy rules about sharing (& selling) that information came about because buyers don't want to be hounded.
As a contributor I do love to know where my images and illustrations have been used, but I can understand why it isn't done. One site - Fotolia - used to do this, but discontinued it some time ago AFAIK.
As far as having a right to know, the only rights you have as a contributor are spelled out in each sites' artist supply agreement. And all of those allow the site to change them at any time for any or no reason, so in truth you have no rights at all (beyond removing your content if you don't like it).
Rights Managed sales will have this type of information - who is using the image for what and in what territories and over what period of time. Perhaps that sales model is more to your liking (although I keep hearing that it's a model in decline).
6698
« on: February 11, 2011, 21:06 »
You're not exclusive, so it can't hurt to investigate. Just be cautious and don't give them freebies - if they want to evaluate quality they can license one photo from one of the agencies and see. What could go wrong? You would be on the hook to deal with any license violations (and you should make sure they get a license so it's clear what they may and may not do with any images they pay you for). If they start selling posters of your images and the license didn't cover that and they won't pay, it's just you and them to sort things out. I'd want to be pretty certain they were who they said they were so you didn't have to worry that someone is uploading your images for free or trying to resell them. They can't pay you once and then "share" what they bought with every other club they know. Assuming they're legit, the volume of business looks reasonable and they're not too much trouble for you to manage (some clients just take more of your time than their business brings in  then why not go for it?
6699
« on: February 11, 2011, 20:23 »
Possibly, but at some point they'll make themselves so painful to do business with that they will start to lose contributors. Especially if they can't keep sales up.
I think I said once before, the worse they treat us and the less we make, the easier it becomes to decide to leave (exclusivity or the site).
6700
« on: February 11, 2011, 20:21 »
Peter Lik sold a print for a million dollars
http://www.peterlikexposed.com/archives/237
I never understood what makes an artwork get so much value.
Creating a brand (Mr. Lik) and artificial scarcity (limited edition of one). It's a lovely image and he's very talented, but also lucky to find someone who'd fork out that much. I wonder if he kept the RAW/negative just in case the print got damaged and the buyer wanted to replace it? I wonder if he gave the buyer a JPEG for his/her Facebook page ?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
