|
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 - loop
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 ... 44
876
« on: June 19, 2009, 05:10 »
Well, I opted in, but just to delete from istock and send there some (not many) old, non-selling and boring files I was beggining to feel ashamed of. Those are files that can be sold at these prices; you get what you pay for. Not knowing what other people has done... but if many have deleted from IS to send to photos.com maybe we'll need to have another 5 milion image.
877
« on: June 17, 2009, 11:45 »
Try another shooting without lingerie. No lingerie, no clothes = no PR problem. Post it here for evaluation and friendly advice about lightning and focus.
878
« on: June 17, 2009, 06:33 »
I would keep StockXpert as cheaper site, to compete in price with FT and DT, allow exclusives to send content there (different content of what is sent to istock, obviously), and use intensively the site to attract buyers looking for exclusive content to IS. And I would close the free stockexchange site or reduce it to even more crappy content.
But no idea of what they are going to do.
879
« on: June 15, 2009, 19:01 »
How do you know they won't pay? I rhink they will pay all what is due, including quantites that didn't reach the payout point.
880
« on: June 15, 2009, 18:59 »
I really felt the guy that started it (I don't want to mention names but you know..) was sincere in the 50% to contributors, if I remember correctly there was a big speech about how we put in just as much work as the agent does, so 50/50 was only fair.. well now he only has 10% of StockXpert, so presumably Getty can change that % commission to whatever they want to, or just buy his 10% and close down the site.. perhaps they can close the site without his 10%, I don't really know how that works.. but I think at this point no-body is working behind the scenes to get us a good deal, and I felt that was the case before.. now I picture those same people I thought were on our side traveling the world, drinking pina colada's, sleeping on a mattress of money and having a grand old time 
I am not sure if the guy who started it is not just so unhappy. He got $$$$ from Getty didn't he?
Secondly, your closing point about "those same people I thought were on our side traveling the world, drinking pina colada's, sleeping on a mattress of money and having a grand old time", is truly scary
and sickening. It is true. They are not going to be paying those who did not reach payout, so they are going to kill Stockxpert and take the money and run.
There should really be a law against that. This really is giving microstock sites a bad name, and now I am wondering who else will be the next site to screw us.
881
« on: June 15, 2009, 17:15 »
My congratulations to both FT and Garth. Hope this is the "light in the tunnel" to all that's been happening in micro stock. ie. that FT will be what IS "used to be" for contributors and how it became this successful before Getty.
they (Fotolia) certainly are getting the brainchildren of the old IStock. maybe they know something we don't. good news for Fotolia none the less. 
If I'm not mistaken, both them weren't working at istock by the time they have been recruited by fotolia, they had been out for months.
882
« on: June 09, 2009, 07:06 »
I think I see an opportunity for a software product.
I'll create an application for image buyers. Give it an image (it can be small) and the keywords you used to find it, and it will search all the microstock sites for the same image, finding the lowest price.
Go ahead with that! It would be a great improvement, because it would "help" many contributors to fight the temptaion of putting their files in cheapo sites as well, knowing that doing that the would probably loss better sales at decent sites.
883
« on: June 07, 2009, 11:56 »
I don't know if it's possible at this site, but if you don't want your photos to be sold there for these miserable prices and you can't delete them, maybe you could (if possible) alter all the keywords, reducing them to a minimun of improbable keywords, so your photos won't be found.
884
« on: June 05, 2009, 10:01 »
iStock however, takes the hit themselves.
Nope - I was given notice of a refund by iStock yesterday. Luckily, it was small (only a couple dollars).
Nope. Refunds at istock don't are related at CC frauds, nor to past sales of deactivated files for copyrigth reasons --we would had known that when they decided to deactivate hundreds of "luxury cars" images-- but to files being returned right after being bought; normally because of mistakes of the buyers when downloading (wrong size, dowloading several times the same file etc). And for me it's a very different matter and it's ok.
885
« on: June 04, 2009, 15:58 »
This is from your other thread, Old Hippy:
"BUT,
when you'll become adults, you'll understand you not only made a big big mistake, but you also
trashed what was until a few years ago a great market open to everybody producing high quality stuff and making everybody happy."
That's a blatant lie, and one of the reasons of the microstock success, Doors were not open at all, they were tigthly closed by an self-protective "elite" defending their "business". I know it because I experienced it.
Closing these doors to me and to many others resulted in we accepting the microstock opportunity. And well, speaking for myself I'm not working for cents, I'm working for thousands a month. Now I wouldn't change that for macrostock, but had I found the macrostock doors accessible in its moment, I wouldn't have joined istock.
886
« on: May 29, 2009, 05:57 »
Not sure completely, but I remember having seen this figure somewhere regarding istockphoto sales. And seeing sales distribution through the day timetable, and sales in just US holiday days (as coming 4th of July) I would say it could be accurate.
887
« on: May 29, 2009, 04:49 »
The way I've always understood this US tax thing is that they are required to withhold the 30% ONLY from sales originating in the US, i.e. if a European buyer buys an image from me on Getty the tax isn't withheld but if the buyer is from the US it is. Without reading through the hundreds of pages on the SS forum does anybody know if this has been addressed or whether the US tax law has changed?
Yes, that's what Getty does, if I'm not mistaken. Just taxing sales in the U.S. That's important because being sales in US about 50% in volume, 30% goes down to 15%.
888
« on: May 28, 2009, 12:45 »
The only message they will understand is mass desertion. I'm not there, so I can't dessert, but I would do it right in this moment if I was. More being --for what I've read--, a place that just can garantee every other day sales. I understand that it would be more difficult to dessert SS, but this one should be easy, and that action would convey a clear message everywhere.
889
« on: May 24, 2009, 16:30 »
Well, have you ever been at some Lypses, you would now that they are photosessions with professionals settings, models and equipment and some time to enjoy yourself, if you want, and get to know others photographers you only knew by their work. A good opportunity to learn from others that know more than you, as well. Minylipses are exactly the same thing than organising sessions with some other photographers sharing costs and expenses. Black masses and any kind of "cult" are reserved for the fantasies of these who love to have fantasies without knowing the real thing.
890
« on: May 23, 2009, 06:40 »
Congrats, Istock is the best place to be, if you are exclusive. In these times of agencies fighting for cents with subs programs, IS offers the best deal and a devent sub program, Being exclusive you can sell your pics for a resonable price and at a reasonable comission (being Diamond). Right now, I don't see another site worth for itself, besides, maybe, Veer.
Another thing is the photos.com deal. Well, at least there's and opt-out.
891
« on: May 22, 2009, 13:48 »
I find this text a very laborius try, but really weak and full of clichs to be a good piece of humor. Try again.
892
« on: May 22, 2009, 13:37 »
The writing on the wall is starting to become pretty clear for both exclusives and independents who submit to Getty sites. All that happened was they tried to toss the frogs into the boiling water and they jumped out. This time around they are wisely placing the frogs in the cool pot of water and slowly turning up the heat.
Perfect synopsis of what is going on. But there are some who are too blind or blinkered to see.
Not true at all. In the mid/long term, personal financial decisions are done based on financial data. And that overpowers any possible emotional decision, that can be based for a short time in faith, hope or good wishes. If exclusives, in the nex months see that things are devoloping in a way that thery are clearly losing a significant amount on the money they could earn being non-excluisves, crowns will sell a dime a dozen. Expecially, top exclusives's crowns. There will be not words/arguments against that ; it's the way the world moves, the economic logic that can't be beaten up. But if the plan works and istockphoto doen't lose customesr, cronws will be very valued and expensive.
893
« on: May 20, 2009, 13:31 »
Actually, if I needed let's say 5 or 6 xxxl image to make poster for an stand and all of them were available at xxxl I would buy a suscription and get these ones and a lot more for almost the same price. But if they weren't available for subscription I would have to pay per download at their size prize.
894
« on: May 20, 2009, 11:58 »
If you are non-ex at IS, at 20%, you would earn abou 8.4 dollars per xxxl dl, not around 5.5 as you say. One credit is not equal to one dollar.
895
« on: May 20, 2009, 04:58 »
Another possibility is if he was selling the same photos he has on istockphoto in RB.
896
« on: May 12, 2009, 11:46 »
IS returns 31 matches for police and donuts. 26 are "correct", 3 are just donuts, and 2 are just police officers without donuts.
SS returns 50 matches. 14 are "correct", 34 are just donuts (actually, at least 3 contain muffins, not donuts), and 2 are just police officers without donuts.
DT returns 19 matches. 6 are "correct" and 13 are just donuts.
FT returns 12 matches. All 12 are just donuts. That's right; 0 "correct" images returned (no surprise to me that FT's search results are the worst).
IS isn't perfect, but based on this search, it's better than the others.
Right, that's tle ultimate proof.
897
« on: May 12, 2009, 05:37 »
And per image sales are very much more unstable than subscriptions ... you are assuming people are buying large credit packages ... I don't believe that they are ... I suspect that most buyers are buying images as they need them or, if deal with a larger volume, then they are buying the subs ... Someone explain why all the microsites are rushing to sell subs if it does not have financial benefit for them?
They buy the packages, certainly. It's easy to tell just looking at the comissions for each sale. Many of them come for large, disconted sales.
898
« on: May 11, 2009, 18:31 »
Yes, deleting these kind of keywords and blocking the ability to edit them in these cases would be the best solution.
899
« on: May 11, 2009, 18:19 »
So for a photo of handcuffs, "arrest" is not sufficiently relevant. But "nobody", is ok.
IStock is truly another world. I think I'll start adding "walrus" and "carpenter" to all my IStock submissions.
Of course it isn't. An arrest is an action. A hand is a hand. A police officer is a police officer. Nobody tells precisely that there's not any person in the shot: it's ok. Put these handcuffs in human hands and the matter would change. But without them, all I can do is wonder why in hell you are complaining.
900
« on: May 07, 2009, 06:45 »
Actually, to contributors with high ranked status, the ones most liked by the buyers, Fotolia is more expensive than istock.
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 ... 44
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
