|
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 - PaulieWalnuts
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 120
951
« on: November 29, 2012, 09:49 »
I hit 40% today actually and got the congrats email. A nice 15% increase. Nice way to start the day. 
Where's the link? I demand we see your portfolio right now.  Congrats! Pretty major accomplishment considering how many diamond producers seem to be dropping like rocks.
952
« on: November 27, 2012, 07:00 »
Keep in mind that if you decide to go back to exclusive that you will start over in search placement. You may have had good placement before. Or you may end up better this time around. It's a gamble. Good luck with whatever you do.
953
« on: November 25, 2012, 11:39 »
I think everyone who is contemplating this camera needs to ask themselves if they really need a 36 MP sensor
Good question. With magazines dying and more content moving to web will larger or smaller images be in greater demand?
954
« on: November 25, 2012, 10:46 »
I'm upset but like most others I'm caught in the trap and just have to accept their decision.
Eventually, this industry may become worthless for contributors, so finding other ways of monetising our work (direct sales, galleries, PoD, whatever) is a good thing to do, but I suppose most of us will ride the roller-coaster pretty much to the end.
The fact that they push us into looking for alternatives does affect them (and the long-term prospects for the industry) as it will mean more competition and fewer images going to the stock sites.
I'd agree. I've been working selling my work in non-stock channels for a couple years now. Ever since things started turning nasty with us being squeezed I started looking to diversify.
955
« on: November 24, 2012, 08:50 »
Anybody using the 28-300 on a D800? Is it good enough for stock?
956
« on: November 23, 2012, 16:05 »
It's a snapshot of a lime? To me the white balance and exposure look off. It's dull. Not punchy. Stock photos are used to sell something. Like a lime drink. If you saw a Sprite advertisement using this lime what would you think?
A search for lime on Istock gets 18,755 results. Shutterstock gets 60,578 results. I'd suggest checking those out and comparing yours to the tens of thousands of competitors. What's better about yours? What's unique? Why would a buyer choose yours over the tens of thousands of others?
When you improve camera basics like exposure/white balance and then understand what buyers want then you'll have something to submit.
957
« on: November 22, 2012, 21:44 »
Jay must have one junior programmer fixing IS problems in their spare time.
It's pretty clear IS isn't part of Getty's long term plans. IS has a part time CEO and she's a Getty SVP who's supposed to be an E-commerce expert. Hmmmm. Either she's doing a horrible job or they're expecting these problems because they're part of a transition plan.
958
« on: November 22, 2012, 21:09 »
Is this zero royalty thing what got screwed up last January that we never got reimbursed for?
959
« on: November 21, 2012, 13:46 »
Well I won't apply - sorry.
I'm trying to make a living and 50% commission is still a good deal in my books.
No idea whether you are happy with the 45% commission you get from IS (assuming you are selling 1.2 Million credits per year) or not but 50% is still more than 45%.
So why complain about a company that gives you 50% when you are perfectly fine selling EXCLUSIVELY your RF stuff for 45%?
This kind of doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
And here we go with the exclusivity BS again. I can sell RM anywhere including Alamy. So a cut at Alamy or any RM can affect me. And again, when one site gets away with cutting commission it shows the other sites they can do the same so this affect us all. Not sure what's so hard to understand. Seems like common sense to me.
960
« on: November 21, 2012, 12:43 »
... Anybody who wants to work for nothing please contact me...
You seriously consider a 50% commission working for nothing? Did I miss something?
Oh, okay. Let me try this again. Anyone who wants to work for me where I start off paying you a decent wage and then I reward your hard work by regularly dropping your wage until it's next to nothing, please contact me.
961
« on: November 21, 2012, 11:34 »
Really looking forward to the full launch of Picturengine!
Really looking forward to some new disruptive model that gives us other options than being financially squashed by agencies.
962
« on: November 21, 2012, 11:32 »
"You can't be serious right? See a pattern? Yes, times are moving on to where we will be making 1% of almost nothing. "
Wait until SS sees how happy everyone is here to take less...
Yep, and they also are now a public company with a gazillion investors who will be putting enormous pressure on them to squeeze every penny out of it. We'll see how long it takes for the changes to start happening.
963
« on: November 21, 2012, 10:56 »
Another thought - if some other agencies reduced our commission by 10 percent points it would leave us with a commission in the single digits 
To see that Alamy still pays us 50% AFTER the commission cut is not a total disaster...
It used to be 70% then 65% then 60% now 50%. Next up???
Is it just me or does anyone still realize that Alamy WILL pay us 50% commission?
Why is it such a big deal what they used to pay us? Is everyone now living in the past? Sorry but times are moving on.
Do we all seriously believe that while (nearly) all agencies cut our royalties that Alamy HAS TO stay the same - forever - and ever - to all eternity?
The last IS commission reduction took away also 25% of my (pre-commission-change IS) income, leaving most of us with a commission of less than 20%.
I'm not that naive to praise Alamy for their future 50% cut due to the relatively low quantity of sales but I think a few here should get their facts straight as for example many were oh-so-grateful when Stockfresh came out of the bushes announcing the same deal like Stockxpert used to have (50/50).
So for a microstock agency it's a blessing to pay us 50% but how dare Alamy pay us 50% ?
Come on. I think we really have to worry a lot more about other issues than get getting paid 50% from a macro agency.
Is it just me or does anyone still realize that Alamy WILL pay us 70% commission?Why is it such a big deal what they used to pay us? Is everyone now living in the past? Sorry but times are moving on. Is it just me or does anyone still realize that Alamy WILL pay us 40% commission?Why is it such a big deal what they used to pay us? Is everyone now living in the past? Sorry but times are moving on. Is it just me or does anyone still realize that Alamy WILL pay us 30% commission?Why is it such a big deal what they used to pay us? Is everyone now living in the past? Sorry but times are moving on. Is it just me or does anyone still realize that Alamy WILL pay us 20% commission?Why is it such a big deal what they used to pay us? Is everyone now living in the past? Sorry but times are moving on. Is it just me or does anyone still realize that Alamy WILL pay us 10% commission?Why is it such a big deal what they used to pay us? Is everyone now living in the past? Sorry but times are moving on. Is it just me or does anyone still realize that Alamy WILL pay us 1% commission?Why is it such a big deal what they used to pay us? Is everyone now living in the past? Sorry but times are moving on. --------------------------- You can't be serious right? See a pattern? Yes, times are moving on to where we will be making 1% of almost nothing. Anybody who wants to work for nothing please contact me. I have a company I would like to start up and having employees work for free will get me a yacht and oceanfront home a lot more quickly.
964
« on: November 20, 2012, 14:59 »
shouldn't exclusives be out of this discussion?
Uh no. Exclusives can submit RM to other outlets including Alamy.
And besides, when were you appointed the gatekeeper for responses?
you can submit whatever you want where you want (I really don't care), my point is that iStock wasn't and isn't a very fair company, what arguments can you guys add here?
Oh, ok, I get it. You're just an exclusive hater.
And if we're going to be excluding people from responding who submit to unfair companies than this post should have zero responses.
has nothing to do with that, if you and other have opted to be exclusive its certainly because you have a better deal, what bothers me is people complaining about Alamy when all other are paying less, stock is about obedience and I have always behaved well 
The problem is they're all cutting commissions which isn't good for us individually and as a whole regardless of where we submit. When one gets away with a commission cut the others watch the outcome and do the same thing.
And this whole exclusive vs independent mentality isn't helping. It's bad enough that it's Us vs Them. Us vs Us only helps them.
thats beautiful and I wish it was that way but it isn't as you know and its actually impossible, we all know that we care about our own pockets and it does make sense, or are you going to pay my bills if my income drops?
So you're saying it's impossible for you to be civil to fellow submitters and especially IS exclusives. Time for me to get back to editing photos. Best of luck to you.
965
« on: November 20, 2012, 14:49 »
shouldn't exclusives be out of this discussion?
Uh no. Exclusives can submit RM to other outlets including Alamy.
And besides, when were you appointed the gatekeeper for responses?
you can submit whatever you want where you want (I really don't care), my point is that iStock wasn't and isn't a very fair company, what arguments can you guys add here?
Oh, ok, I get it. You're just an exclusive hater.
And if we're going to be excluding people from responding who submit to unfair companies than this post should have zero responses.
has nothing to do with that, if you and other have opted to be exclusive its certainly because you have a better deal, what bothers me is people complaining about Alamy when all other are paying less, stock is about obedience and I have always behaved well
The problem is they're all cutting commissions which isn't good for us individually and as a whole regardless of where we submit. When one gets away with a commission cut the others watch the outcome and do the same thing. And this whole exclusive vs independent mentality isn't helping. It's bad enough that it's Us vs Them. Us vs Us only helps them.
966
« on: November 20, 2012, 14:32 »
shouldn't exclusives be out of this discussion?
Uh no. Exclusives can submit RM to other outlets including Alamy.
And besides, when were you appointed the gatekeeper for responses?
you can submit whatever you want where you want (I really don't care), my point is that iStock wasn't and isn't a very fair company, what arguments can you guys add here?
Oh, ok, I get it. You're just an exclusive hater. And if we're going to be excluding people from responding who submit to unfair companies than this post should have zero responses.
967
« on: November 20, 2012, 14:14 »
shouldn't exclusives be out of this discussion?
Uh no. Exclusives can submit RM to other outlets including Alamy. And besides, when were you appointed the gatekeeper for responses?
968
« on: November 20, 2012, 12:29 »
I haven't sold on Alamy yet. If it increases sales the I can accept that. I wait to be convinced. 50% is still good compared to rest of the market. My issue with the site is the the key wording/submission process which makes it the longest site for me to complete. Why have 3 categories? A simpler process would be a nice way to spend some of the money. I like the 123RF process.
I think we as a whole need to get away from the "it's okay to take stuff away from us" mentality. For the effort we put in we should be getting increases, not reductions. This "it's okay as long as it's disguised as yet another false benefit" sets a tone for the entire industry that it's okay. We've taken enough cuts. Once commission is cut it's not going back up.
969
« on: November 20, 2012, 10:27 »
If revenue is increasing, and the company is profitable, then there should be more profits to spend on expansion.
at least they are honest and admit that it is profitable, unlike the jackasses who claimed it became "unsustainable" while getting %80 so they needed more!
Yes, they are honest. They are cutting commissions to bring it down closer to competitors. And competitors keep lowering commissions so all agencies will continue to reduce commissions until contributors go away. Then they will stop cutting. Apparantly not enough of us have left yet.
970
« on: November 20, 2012, 06:57 »
I wonder why expansion costs always come at the expense of contributors. If revenue is increasing, and the company is profitable, then there should be more profits to spend on expansion.
While I appreciate agencies and the fact that they provide income, it's pretty clear that there is no stopping the continual downward push of commissions. Where will it stop? 10%? 5%?
971
« on: November 17, 2012, 11:01 »
I agree that you get the feeling that they're just trying to stay alive instead of fixing and improving things. My hope is that they're currently working on a brand new site, written from scratch. So as a nice christmas present we'll get a brand new iStock that is bug free, super fast and with instant and reliable download/stats updates.
But I guess you shouldn't hope too much. 
Either a new site or more likely consolidating IS with GI. The connector that moves Vetta, Agency, and now E+ content over to GI was probably designed as a data migration tool. If this is what they're doing it will be interesting to see how they handle the rest of the images. Will they move Photo+ images also? Will only exclusive images get moved? Will some go to Getty Images and the rest to Thinkstock?
972
« on: November 17, 2012, 10:14 »
A lot of this adds up. Businesses become quiet before a big change.
IS is being band-aided. Pushing for credits to be used up. Moderators have been pretty silent in the forums. Getty was down for maintenance. Some key people have been shuffled or are gone.
maybe they are just taking too long to fix everything
Yes, they absolutely are taking way too long for a $200M+ revenue company to be fixing things. I'm in IT so I understand the complexity and know even the smallest "oh that's simple" changes can cause massive problems if not thoroughly tested. This is different. Their IT team seems to have one priority. Keep the site running. Which means they're focusing their time on something else other than IS.
973
« on: November 17, 2012, 10:08 »
I tried to word this nicely but I'm tired and punchy so here it goes.
If your concept for this picture is "food from the 1970's you disliked as a kid" then you nailed it.
My first thought was "ewww, it looks like a blob of goop on an old plate."
The white balance seems off, too warm. And find a different color plate. Not sure what color plate but not this one. Is this cheese? Maybe try a different type.
974
« on: November 17, 2012, 09:39 »
A lot of this adds up. Businesses become quiet before a big change.
IS is being band-aided. Pushing for credits to be used up. Moderators have been pretty silent in the forums. Getty was down for maintenance. Some key people have been shuffled or are gone.
975
« on: November 16, 2012, 19:28 »
<snip>
Also every uploaded image requires a manual page creation with a shortcode pasted into it. So, individual photo pages are not generated automatically.
I can see that it would be too much to ask for all that but I can't use it out of the box, at all. It's pretty much not-functional for me.
I installed it and this is what I came across too. Doesn't seem to have a feature that creates pages of thumbnails. Copy and paste shortcodes to publish images? Wuh? If that's really how it works that's pretty rudimentary. When I first saw the specs I was drooling but my enthusiasm just went off a cliff.
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 120
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
