|
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 - wds
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38
851
« on: April 16, 2014, 14:09 »
Go the the file's page, then: "Administer"->"Manage"->"Edit" then just "Save". See if that clears the problem. This is a common situation
852
« on: April 13, 2014, 18:44 »
I've had issues in the past with Lightroom exporting synonyms and parent keywords. I went through my keyword list and eliminated synonyms. I also totally flattened out my keyword list (i.e. no parent keywords/no heirarchy). I found that I no longer have such issues. I am not saying this is the only solution, but it worked for me.
853
« on: April 08, 2014, 09:08 »
I have had many cases where I get editorial rejections for things like "missing EXIF" data when I know it wasn't missing. If you are convinced your file data is good, I would just regenerate the file (to be safe), check the EXIF and then re-upload.
854
« on: April 05, 2014, 09:18 »
Since it's April and this supposedly has started, has anyone gotten one? Or will it be reported like TS, next month? I wonder what I should be looking for, if and when I get the first Sub DL?
Anyone have one? Anyone know?
wds is correct.
From the original email we were sent on 4th March and in the OP of the subs thread on iS (3rd March)
Royalties will be reported monthly, not in real time. Initially we will be reporting these royalties under the Partner Program.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=359606&messageid=6990296
and in case you also missed it:
Image Subscription downloads arent purchased with credits so we will not be calculating RCs with these downloads.
So we are doubly screwed.
Cash purchases aren't made with credits either, but they give RCs for those. I really have to wonder if the RC system is going to disappear or be radically changed in 2015. They haven't dropped levels based on RCs for the past two years, so in effect, they really aren't following "the RC system".
855
« on: April 05, 2014, 08:18 »
Since it's April and this supposedly has started, has anyone gotten one? Or will it be reported like TS, next month? I wonder what I should be looking for, if and when I get the first Sub DL?
Anyone have one? Anyone know?
Unfortunately, they will be reported after the fact at the end of the month. The only way to possibly see impact is via a noticeable bump in views.
856
« on: March 11, 2014, 10:29 »
From the announcement: "...Moment Mobile: ... (iOs only for now-Andriod to come)....". Is this the first time Getty is officially stating they will in fact support Android for Moment Mobile?
857
« on: March 03, 2014, 21:43 »
So Thinkstock pricing comes to iStock - and no RC credit for a subs sale
That will make keeping higher royalty rates harder over time for exclusives...
They've grandfathered the "RC system" Royalty rates for the last two years. I have to wonder if they are going to scrap the RC system as it currently stands.
858
« on: February 21, 2014, 13:24 »
Did Shutterstock say anything about market-share or market-share trend?
859
« on: February 21, 2014, 08:52 »
Did Shutterstock make any claims about market share and/or market share growth?
860
« on: October 11, 2013, 07:32 »
Forums not working for me.
861
« on: October 04, 2013, 16:32 »
Are you taking into account iStock's collection promotions (e.g. E to E+ or Vetta) of images? In other words, they may have raised the price of many images that were say in the "E" collection to the "E+" collection...images that they saw selling.
862
« on: September 18, 2013, 07:39 »
^ I can believe your trend. For the last few years at least, I haven't really seen any significant uptick towards the end of the year, at times quite the contrary.
863
« on: September 17, 2013, 16:33 »
If you don't mind my asking, loop and "This is the West" are you istock exclusives?
864
« on: September 16, 2013, 16:50 »
istock period end of story, no more istockphoto. it shows a clear break with the past.
I might buy that. But that will lose meaning over time.
They might be trying to convey iStock "period" as if they are the only company "needed" or the only company "that matters".
865
« on: September 16, 2013, 14:54 »
Note the tag - "iStock by Getty Images" ... Looks like a move towards assimilation.
That might be a good thing for Istock depending what changes. I know buyers for billion dollar industries that buy Getty images because they trust them to be safe and even after telling them that Istock is owned by Getty they don't want to use Istock (or any other microstock image) because they worry if the rights are secured and the images are safe to use. Having Getty's name on there could be reassuring for some major buyers.
BTW aren't they getting rid of the "only from istock" tag?
I can't believe Getty would do anything that would divert buyers away from the high prices of the mothership.
866
« on: September 16, 2013, 14:14 »
A bit scary since it's an opportunity to introduce a bunch of changes...not necessarily in favor of the contributors.
867
« on: September 14, 2013, 09:26 »
Before any views or downloads may have locked in the keyword order, you can "Edit File Information" and put the keywords in any order you want by reentering them in the desired order.
868
« on: September 12, 2013, 15:46 »
The website was never the main issue, it's cheap prices at the competitors.
But, the main collection prices really weren't an issue. Those were fairly competitive already. It was all the specialty collections that were jammed at the front of searches that were expensive.
I'm not sure that's true. I've posted some of the competitors pricing and the range was from around $2.50-$12 for many full sized images (much much less if you count subs, SS says they charge less than $3 average when all file types are counted) but Istock was charging $27 for that same exact content. 10x more than canstock, 3x more than Shutterstock and now guess what they lowered the prices to be the same as Shutterstock. I think it's clear why they did it.
You can look at Thinkstock too and see how their pricing and royalties mirrored Shutterstock, they paid exclusives the tiniest bit more than what Shutterstock's top level is (coincidence?) and the plans are very similar in terms and pricing.
The other collections pushed to the front were a separate issue and I think they changed that a while before lowering the prices.
So it appears to be a classic example of everyone attempting to copy (at least pricewise) the market leader. Is that enough? Usually, someone has to best the leader to take leadership. This is more like "follower-ship"
If all the content is exactly the same then there isn't too much room for real differentiation except maybe on price, but that is also becoming more homogenized. The leader is still Istock by a large margin and they have the most unique content, I think that makes sense.
Why would iStock completely upend their pricing and collection scheme if they were the leader by a large margin? Where do you get your data that supports this?
Because they had an even wider margin before? I got the information from the link in OP of this thread. "One third of Gettys revenue comes from its midstock business" by midstock they mean Istock. Total revenue of around 900 million so Istock is at 300 million. I think Shutterstock was projected at around 230 million for the year, close to that at least.
About 30% I guess that's believable. I thought you were implying an order of magnitude type of difference. I guess another interesting question is what is the "velocity" of the change (in relative revenue). Where was it a year ago...two years ago?
869
« on: September 12, 2013, 14:48 »
The website was never the main issue, it's cheap prices at the competitors.
But, the main collection prices really weren't an issue. Those were fairly competitive already. It was all the specialty collections that were jammed at the front of searches that were expensive.
I'm not sure that's true. I've posted some of the competitors pricing and the range was from around $2.50-$12 for many full sized images (much much less if you count subs, SS says they charge less than $3 average when all file types are counted) but Istock was charging $27 for that same exact content. 10x more than canstock, 3x more than Shutterstock and now guess what they lowered the prices to be the same as Shutterstock. I think it's clear why they did it.
You can look at Thinkstock too and see how their pricing and royalties mirrored Shutterstock, they paid exclusives the tiniest bit more than what Shutterstock's top level is (coincidence?) and the plans are very similar in terms and pricing.
The other collections pushed to the front were a separate issue and I think they changed that a while before lowering the prices.
So it appears to be a classic example of everyone attempting to copy (at least pricewise) the market leader. Is that enough? Usually, someone has to best the leader to take leadership. This is more like "follower-ship"
If all the content is exactly the same then there isn't too much room for real differentiation except maybe on price, but that is also becoming more homogenized. The leader is still Istock by a large margin and they have the most unique content, I think that makes sense.
Why would iStock completely upend their pricing and collection scheme if they were the leader by a large margin? Wouldn't they stick with what made them the leader? Do you have data that supports this?
870
« on: September 12, 2013, 14:17 »
The website was never the main issue, it's cheap prices at the competitors.
But, the main collection prices really weren't an issue. Those were fairly competitive already. It was all the specialty collections that were jammed at the front of searches that were expensive.
I'm not sure that's true. I've posted some of the competitors pricing and the range was from around $2.50-$12 for many full sized images (much much less if you count subs, SS says they charge less than $3 average when all file types are counted) but Istock was charging $27 for that same exact content. 10x more than canstock, 3x more than Shutterstock and now guess what they lowered the prices to be the same as Shutterstock. I think it's clear why they did it.
You can look at Thinkstock too and see how their pricing and royalties mirrored Shutterstock, they paid exclusives the tiniest bit more than what Shutterstock's top level is (coincidence?) and the plans are very similar in terms and pricing.
The other collections pushed to the front were a separate issue and I think they changed that a while before lowering the prices.
So it appears to be a classic example of everyone attempting to copy (at least pricewise) the market leader. Is that enough? Usually, someone has to best the leader to take leadership. This is more like "follower-ship"
871
« on: September 11, 2013, 11:49 »
Him saying "...iStockphoto is the extreme example for that. We've put 13 people who had never been on the iStockphoto website before in a room and we watched them. At the end of a hour, they had no idea what we were actually doing..."
I have a hard time believing that not one out of 13 could figure out how to buy something on an ecommerce site. After "an hour".
Agreed. I went on each site as an "new user" searching for an image with one keyword. Both processes were pretty much the same. I think his assertion for the cause of iStock having problems doesn't ring true. I find his language interesting though, almost praising the competition. He must feel that it is well known and established that SS is doing much better than iS.
872
« on: September 11, 2013, 11:34 »
Kind of interesting.
Him saying "...iStockphoto is the extreme example for that. We've put 13 people who had never been on the iStockphoto website before in a room and we watched them. At the end of a hour, they had no idea what we were actually doing..."
and then: "...You see businesses like Shutterstock that are doing extremely well.."
Sounds like from his view iStock is having major problems against the competition.
873
« on: September 10, 2013, 20:46 »
Regarding raising prices, iStock raised prices for years which may be part of the reason customers started to leave.
874
« on: September 10, 2013, 09:46 »
It's no better on the photo side - sales have catastrophically crashed, for me at least.
I had pretty good sales the last few days of August and then sales seemed to have crashed starting Sept. 1. Yes, am exclusive.
875
« on: September 10, 2013, 07:06 »
^
I suspect that all non-exclusives will eventually be moved entirely to the PP sites and removed entirely from iStock itself. Then exclusives can stop moaning about any perceived advantages that nons currently have in the Main collection in terms of cheaper pricing and best match placement anywhere in the first 10 pages..... 
If the downtrend continues there, the only exclusives left may be the pseudo-exclusives.
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
