|
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 - Sean Locke Photography
7301
« on: December 09, 2008, 22:39 »
Why do you say they are losing market share?
7302
« on: December 09, 2008, 22:04 »
Of course images of Yuri will be more expensive, but some buyers will not / can not pay the price and will pick an image of someone else at a lower price.
You mean like the price of $250 for 750 images?
7303
« on: December 09, 2008, 19:38 »
My interpretation of keyword ranking is a little different, so it will be interesting to see how the system is actually implemented. I see it as the order of a keyword in a list (and maybe the number of words in the list) determines how much weight it has, not some arbitrary? weighting determined by istock. But maybe I'm wrong
Yes, you're wrong, in this case: "A long time ago we developed an algorithm to rank keywords on each file. Since then, we've been tracking data for every single file on iStock. Guess what? It works."
7304
« on: December 09, 2008, 19:36 »
Maybe they will (finally) also evaluate relevance by searching title and description.
Regards,
Adelaide
Doubtful, since they aren't translatable, and easily spammable.
7305
« on: December 09, 2008, 19:35 »
"Can anyone show me where we have been talking about this elsewhere on another post."
No, no one here guessed this tiered setup specifically. No one. However, raising pricing to reflect quality is a common topic.
7306
« on: December 09, 2008, 18:30 »
shank-ali. He hates it.
7307
« on: December 09, 2008, 16:55 »
It's no surprise. Istock has churned up pricing every New Year, and besides, we've all been saying there's nowhere to go but up. Free just doesn't work these days.
7308
« on: December 09, 2008, 15:03 »
I know some people have been asking for "collections". I'm not sure what to think yet. If my stuff gets put in the "premiere" collection, I feel buyers may just buy similar independent stuff in the "regular" collection at a much cheaper rate. I'm not sure if the benefit is there for a buyer for such a higher price. I may not even be "premiere" collection material, so I may not even have to worry about it.
7309
« on: December 09, 2008, 14:35 »
Independents get a reward in raised prices for regular imagery. That's not too bad, is it?
7311
« on: December 09, 2008, 14:12 »
7312
« on: December 09, 2008, 13:57 »
Geez Christian, who peed in your coffee this week? I've never heard such gloom and doom. I hope something happens soon to cheer you up.
BTW, inspections are moving along fine.
7313
« on: December 09, 2008, 07:38 »
Yes, sorry, you're right. I was so surprised that I forgot my theory that he's transitioning into a consulting position, and also taking percentages from those in his "distribution network". I just remembered the complaints in the other thread recently, but maybe that was just ranting against iStock.
7314
« on: December 09, 2008, 07:28 »
If he's so concerned with dropping profits, I'm still surprised he's going around training his competition. That doesn't make any sense to me.
7315
« on: December 06, 2008, 06:48 »
It was fotolia who said they would never offer subs, which now doesn't seem surprisingcinsudering their recent scummy levels adjustment.
7316
« on: December 05, 2008, 22:30 »
Unless they sell more than enough exclusive images to make up the difference and then maybe they aren't as dumb as you think...
Good point, now it's time for photographers doing campaign (blog, forum, etc) to disclaim the mantra.
Agreed as I think they are the only ones who have actually bought into it ... [/quote] fair enough, I may well be very wrong and not realise that buyers dont believe the hype. personally I dont care whether people are exclusive or not, I'm still learning and got enough of my own problems without worrying about that sort of stuff  the dont like images all over the web statement bugs me though, as far as I can it is only a minority of people think that. What makes me laugh at the irony of the whole exclusive thing and promoting exclusive images (I dont know or care whether they get higher placement, it's their shop) is that it is the exclusive images that they make less money on due to higher commissions, so they are actually promoting their less profitable product phil [/quote]
7317
« on: December 05, 2008, 22:23 »
Each person has their comfort level. Personally I'm at the point where the thought of selling at ss is completely unacceptable, and if anyone asked, I would steer them away.
7318
« on: December 05, 2008, 22:20 »
Phil, trying to get around the istock terms by pulling that kind if thing will likely see you gone forever. If you can't commit to exclusivity, then don't. Don't try to have your cake and eat it too. Management isn't stupid.
7319
« on: December 04, 2008, 08:36 »
Note to Sophie - the istock plan is nothing like a ss type plan.
7320
« on: December 04, 2008, 08:03 »
I agree there is no conspirital wave of exclusives here trying to convert anyone.
7321
« on: December 04, 2008, 06:13 »
With the obvious exception of one person, I don't really see a whole lot of people here trying to recruit new exclusives or promote becoming exclusive as a cure for the current best match disaster (which also harmed many exclusives, by the way). In fact, it's quite the opposite.
Who do you think is here is trying to recruit exclusives?
7322
« on: December 03, 2008, 21:32 »
I dunno. I'm sure you could find an accepted crappy independent image for every crappy exclusive image. People just tend to get tweaked because my image of "X" was rejected while this exclusive crappy image of "X" got in. But there may be another perfectly crappy X insependent image that did get in, just not yours.
I'm not sure where the idea came about that everything needs to be spelled out in crystal clear terms, but everyone here has seemed to come to the same conclusion about various things, so why not just accept whatever that is as a starting point and go from there?
7323
« on: December 03, 2008, 20:30 »
@ getalife whatalife : (  sorry, couldn't help it  )
the exclusives aren't the problem. They are just people like we are who just made a different choice.
The 'problem' (if we can call it that way) is that IS treats non-exclusives very different then exclusives. And this is what some people don't accept.
Well, hello? That's the point. To be treated differently. If you were treated the same, there wouldn't be a difference. Btw, regarding copying, I just helped out a contributor who had another blatently ripping off her more successful images. The other is being dealt with.
7324
« on: December 03, 2008, 06:44 »
As I assume these forums are read by IS admins too I want the ability to rant a bit without the worry that I'm going to be singled out as a troublemaker. Sorry!
Why, what do you think they'll do? I doubt you'll be singled out for anything around here.
7325
« on: December 03, 2008, 06:37 »
Nice.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
