Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on November 04, 2010, 09:29

$20,000 is nothing for propaganda. Whether it's working, it's another issue.

Agreed, it's not much if it worked, their problem is that it has totally backfired. You can't screw your contributors for millions then chuck back loose change to some sycophants and hope that's going to help heal the rift.
It just feels like a slap in the face.
 

That's just a re-distribution of the Punctum Adwards, wich existed long before the comission changes.

It is very easy to know if they hide or "steal" downloads or subscriptions. I'm not going to tell you how. You should know it just thinking a little. Maybe it would help if you didn't have a conclusion you want/need to expose before you begin your thinking process.

Better or worse, done or overdone, the fact is that Vetta sells. I'm selling more Vetta (on percentage per numbers of Vettas in my portfolio) than regulars. Discussion on artistisc merits is futile, because is subjective. Customer paying way more to buy these files is, at the very least, objective data.

Hi Freedom,

 No these people don't get to me anymore, why should they everyone is entitled to their opinion. I gave that up a while ago but thank you for the advice and the support. You cannot please all the people and when you are willing to share information there will always be people that disagree or worse. No worries.

Best,
Jonathan

That's not information, just speculation, maybe wishful thinking. Information has data and proof.

You can search by rating. I always do it when I'm looking por images to buy. Maybe you don't get the best photos, but you get very good photos.

Quote from: jsnover on October 20, 2010, 10:29

Quote from: traveler1116 on October 20, 2010, 02:37

New mail from IS.  Learn all about collections.  They say "Agency Collection photos cost from 55 to 200 credits. "  XXXL images cost 250 credits but I guess that's not meant to mislead anyone, just a typo.  They also say vetta "cost between 30 and 125 credits. "  XXXL Vetta is 150, another typo?  They also say "Exclusive photos can cost between 2 and 25 credits"  not exactly an E+ XXXL costs 35 credits, maybe it's a typo too?

We'll see if anything (other than the thread getting locked) comes of it, but I posted something about the errors in the prices here. You have to wonder if anyone acts as an editor on these things or if they just write them and ship them out.

journalism and copy editing are lost arts it seems.

Well, following last year's patterns. Not so many downloads like last year, but more money. Having increments of 50 and 75 for Vettas compesates smaller lost downloads.

Quote from: loop on October 12, 2010, 18:00

Being the fisrt time in six years I don't consider it more than an accident.

I am pretty sure this happened once before, but can't find any info on when (the istock forum search sucks - or maybe my searching skills do ).  Either that or I am recalling the PayPal maintenance that affected things, but I'm pretty sure there was a 'snafu' like this sometime back, but it was less than six years ago. I admit that I could actually be wrong.

Yes, there had benn a pair of short paypal mantenance problems, and some trouble back in 2008 when some people dind't see in the forums that there was a payment cut-off at Christmas holidays. That's all I can remember, payments have been coming always o'clock.

I'm not gong to ignore him, I don't believe in ignoring. But... 20.5 posts per day!!! (only macrosaur and Old Hippie got to these heights)

20.5 posts per day! Time to change subject and begin discussing neurosis and obssession.

It is always sad to see someone trying to put the blame of his failure on others. Shame on who? On the macrostock shooters that cut off assignement works? Deactivate, what? That's a personal decision based on financial figures.

Luckily, microstockers have learnt the hard way. With a few exceptions, we don't need the bigger studios, the latests expensive gadgets, five assistants, two stylists, two make up artists and one guy to change a lightbulb (just in case) to do a shooting. That implies lots of creativity. That implies to a way better capacity for reacting and adapting to changing situations... What others, years before, weren't able to do.... big and slow armies defeated by guerrillas, if yoy see what I mean.

And should everything fail, what I wouldn't to do is spending seven years in all available forum with all available nick moaning, crying and playing the prophet. I would consider suicide before adopting such clownish attitudes.

I'm with 11 altogether, but I only upload regularly to 8 - all from the top and middle tier.  The other three were just small ones I tried out for a while, but didn't turn out to be worth my while.

... And that, the other microstock sites and the possibility of opening new ones, is the obvius, easily understable for any person with a brain, reason that makes impossible for Getty to eliminate the low cost market. To do that, Getty should operate in a vacuum. What gives these Agency files some visibility is their microstock contetx, never the images themselves. What istock is doing is pushing to a microstock-midstock concept, fishing now and then some bigger sale with files that, at macro, would have almost no visibility.

Quote from: gostwyck on October 01, 2010, 16:21

Quote from: Risamay on October 01, 2010, 16:07

So glad someone brought up the clubfest going down over yonder. Pom-poms and all (and the very words used therein - not mine!) ... it's ... difficult to stomach if you've just eaten and hope to keep a meal down. To say the least.

Really? What __ even now How much abuse, greed and worthless disregard does Istockphoto have to demonstrate to them before they realise they are being shafted?

Not that I want you to encourage them, but apparently more than has been dispensed thus far

I think that there are some people who have lots of Vetta files who find the the whole situation OK for them - they feel well taken care of and don't connect with the vast majority of the contributor pool (even the exclusive contributor pool). I'm putting words in their mouths, but I think they'd make a variation of the argument often voiced by many independents that as long as the $$ keeps going up, they won't fuss about changing royalty percentages, or subscriptions or anything else.

By the time Getty takes aim at them, they may look around for support in fighting back, but I doubt there'll be much.  

As we've seen, each time one of the agencies pulls off a cash crab - and unfortunately iStock isn't the first, just the latest and most spectacular to date - it emboldens the others. They then claim they have to stay competitive.

@Lisa - we've been contributors for roughly the same amount of time.  The only constant seems to be change

Looking for support is meaningless and useless, except for personal confort. Agencies don't listen, not just IS: All. If istock is able to improve my earnings with these changes, my hat will be off, and I will stay here. If not, probably not. It's my war, and the only thing that really matters, because economics are 100 times stronger than emotions, and one dent in earnings and so, a threat to basic income would force many exlusives to really rethink their exclusiveness. And just that, a runaway en masse could make change politics and decisions.

When talking of exclusives"  and "elite" it should be reminded that this status is not an istock election, but a free choice for anyone with 250 or 500 downloads. Have we exclusive some privileges? Yes, but  in exchange of not selling at 10 other sites. It's no a matter of "elite", it's a simple matter of choice.