|
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 - noodle
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37
851
« on: July 16, 2012, 17:46 »
"How is everyone doing on 123RF?" - not well enough to maintain 50% by the end of the year by the looks of things.
that new commission structure is going to hurt everyone... I will seriously have to see whether to pull my port out all together ( seriously, if they are going to screw me, I may as well return the favor) or at the very least stop uploading any new stuff to them. Theres still a few months to go , and I hope that they seriously reconsider their intentions of messing around with the commissions.... I think when they wanted to do this last year, there was a big enough stink raised about it from everyone here, that they had to back off... am hoping that they will just remain status quo
852
« on: July 15, 2012, 16:47 »
Hi Wut,
I'm (very) sick and can't be much active on this forum, but over the time I have read your posts and I've learned a bit about your port, the country you're coming from and your opinions.
You like telling it like (you feel) it is.
I'm going to play by that rule and hope you also accept it when other people do the same.
You like to use, and over-use, the word 'pathetic'.
Dreamstime is pathetic, Fotolia is pathetic, 123RF is pathetic too, BigStock, Deposit Photos, Veer and so on, are all pathetic. So is Alamy.
Hidden behind your anonymity you like to criticise the agencies and the work of other photographers, but you can never muster the guts to come out in the open and give your criticism a real face.
That policy is almost acceptable when it comes to agencies, but not so when you start crapping the ports of other people.
As a general rule, try not to talk about other people's work if you're too scared to show yours.
Your opinion becomes null.
Going back on topic, 'Crap doesn't sell at IStock', I have a few things to add.
You're wrong.
IStock sells plenty of crap. Just as much crap as all the other sites.
The difference is that IStock preferantialy sells their own, exclusive crap.
The image is exclusive, it wears a pretty crown made of pixels, but it's still just plain old crap.
And by the way, the vast majority of those crappy IStock exclusive images wouldn't even be accepted by the other sites today.
That's how really crappy they are.
You're planning on going exclusive at IStock.
(and now suddenly, they don't sell crap anymore!)
Your decision is based on earnings. Money is all that matters.
You don't take into consideration any other factors.
'I want money! Today!' - is all that counts to you.
That kind of attitude is doomed to fail. In *any* business.
Looking at the broader picture, taking into account everything that makes IStock today, considering their precarious future and the ownership of ghosts companies, in my opinion, IStock Photo is *the* most pathetic agency of them all.
By far.
Now, having said that, you're right.
IStock is the perfect place for you. It will fit you like a glove.
Looking forward to seeing you wearing a crown, and best of luck, 
All I could picture in my mind after reading this post was Ace Ventura doing the violent pump action and yelling ;"Can you feel that?! Huh? Huh?..."
853
« on: July 15, 2012, 09:33 »
Look here's one: "The moon is made of blue, not green, cheese". Who's to stop me writing that?
mmmmm......... cheeeeesse....
854
« on: July 14, 2012, 12:25 »
crap will be coming in again once they start accepting smart phone images - everyone and their grandmother will be submitting their pics thinking it will result in an easy payday
lets face it - to make decent images you need a real camera, some decent lighting, besides good taste for subject matter and composition... those shooting with phones are not in that category - the only real benefit of shooting with phone is to catch an unusual situation or event that you wouldnt have caught otherwise
855
« on: July 13, 2012, 14:02 »
"Evil" has a new name ....
856
« on: July 06, 2012, 06:28 »
The industry needs a good house cleaning.... and all to the blame goes on these greedy hedge funds and investment houses, the brokers of which should be in jail for bilking money from little investors - in this case its the photographers that contribute to Getty. Pyramid schemes are illegal per se but as someone aptly entioned, this is what iit is essentially, and we are the suckers on the bottom... 
857
« on: July 02, 2012, 08:14 »
I cannot interpretate the air ballon category....
but for the release to the editorial picture... probably means that the agency does not consider the picture editorial.
Can you please interpret this word for us?
858
« on: July 01, 2012, 17:19 »
Spain made Italy look like a pub team...
It was like seeing a nice hot slice of pizza fall on the ground top first, all the good stuff is left behind and all you have is a hot piece of soggy dough
859
« on: July 01, 2012, 08:27 »
Just wondering if most of you put up the same images straight across the board on all sites your on to maximize your sales - or do you hold back certain images from some sites for a reason i.e. their commissions are poor, their sales are low, rejection rates, etc. as a way of 'punishing them' or just beacause its not worth your time...
just curious about this...
860
« on: June 30, 2012, 05:59 »
dont forget - whenever an inage gets Approved you will be given a reason WHY it was accepted - i.e. poor composition, lcv, artifacts visible at 50% view, etc
Hope fully they pay per up
load...
861
« on: June 27, 2012, 06:45 »
here we go again... 
862
« on: June 27, 2012, 05:52 »
I agree that money is always better put toward marketing and getting incentives for new clients...
no matter what agency clients use they have to browse through any number of images before they make a choice... its even worse on the big sites that have well over 15 m pics in their database... even they have some crap in there too
863
« on: June 24, 2012, 12:20 »
90 % of my sales are sub sales -- all at $o.30
this is not a dream - its dreamstime
864
« on: June 24, 2012, 11:10 »
what have they left in YOUR pocket?
865
« on: June 24, 2012, 07:55 »
at this point it's a lost battle and a lost war.
it's just too easy to steal content nowadays.
and Flickr itself doesn't give a sh-it about copyright infringment, which says it all.
by Flikr doing this they are empowering freeloaders and actually aiding people to steal what they have no right to have... such companies with similar policies/practices are reprehensible, arrogant and dont deserve any support whatsoever
866
« on: June 23, 2012, 12:01 »
thx for the headsup on the payout cd - i will go check it out
867
« on: June 23, 2012, 07:33 »
yes sales are growing but most of my sales are subs or s - the comissions are quite pathetic - and they should lower the $100 payout to 50 - with the pennies we earn takes forever to get payout
868
« on: June 23, 2012, 07:26 »
I would have done a batch process for the whole thing and taken a nap...
869
« on: June 19, 2012, 19:15 »
thanks ox - this is a very informative post. I will have to try setting up this arrangement and giving it a try! cool! nice to have an educational post once in awhile among all the complainin'
870
« on: June 16, 2012, 18:28 »
it may not be a scam - but why are they not transparent about how much income will be made per view/clickthrough or whatever, what will the payout level be?
every other legit ms site - crap or not- states exactly what revenue is per dl and what the payout level is?
but frankly, i value even my crap images greater than a penny or two...
871
« on: June 10, 2012, 15:54 »
Italy tieing Spain was a s good as a win for them...
872
« on: June 04, 2012, 18:02 »
they can say whatever they like - in a way it sounds like a bit of coercion. But you also can say whatever YOU want ... 
873
« on: June 03, 2012, 07:54 »
This might seem like a weird question but it is legitimate...
Once your ms portfolio is up it has earning power as long as your images are available to clients.. so what happens in the case of someone who dies, and their portfolio remains generating income - does their beneficiaries continue to receive the royalties? for how long? is their a legal proceedure to go through to ensure this?
Has anyone looked into this or have some insight?
It is an unusual question, but really I think something we should all consider at some point from a practical viewpoint, esp for you big time earners ...
thanks
874
« on: May 30, 2012, 17:15 »
Very impressed on how they listen and try to implement ideas from contributors.... With just 150,000 images in their database, it is still in its infancy, so hopefully as they build up they will draw more buyers , and thus the 75 % commission to photogs will begin to seem like something.... Hoping they continue to grow and find success... I think its worth to at pointing to main page:  least check 'em out
875
« on: May 30, 2012, 16:34 »
have had one photo accpeted - I really have no clue what their looking for - and they dont help by telling you anything either.. very strange agency ...
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
