|
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 - photoagogo
Pages: [1]
1
« on: September 29, 2011, 02:26 »
Oh, you mean things like selling most vectors for 4 and 6 credits. Now, which site does that? hmm... Oh yeah, it's Fotolia.
This policy is so hypocritical it's unbelievable. Look if you want to be the cheapest and lowest paying agency, that's fine. Then, just say that's what you want to do, but don't pretend like you're doing anybody any favors. Because FT is more a part of the problem than the solution. That's why I deleted my portfolio there and others have deleted their ports for the same reason.
It may be harder, but maybe, just maybe, you should try developing some actual customer and contributor loyalty. You could start by offering some incentives instead of punishments to be part of or shop at your site. I know it's a novel concept in this day and age, and it's a long road to gain back the trust, goodwill and reputation that you squandered away. But, think about it.
That word's not allowed apparently. You can expect to have your contribution removed for daring to answer back to one of our illustrious overlords to whom we should be respectful at all times no matter what greedy stunts they pull. Right Leaf?
2
« on: September 27, 2011, 16:01 »
Hmm, I'm not sure calling someone who is responsible for the lowest commissions in the industry a hypocrite is an insult given the topic we're discussing.
Did Chad ask you remove that post Leaf? I didn't realise you were in the pockets of the agencies to quite that extent.
3
« on: May 18, 2011, 00:16 »
So theoretically you could upload your entire portfolio (assuming images are approved) no matter how long it takes and have it ready to go at SS the moment you reach the point of no return with iStock and cancel exclusivity? Surely SS have mechanisms in place to prevent all iS exclusives doing this?
4
« on: April 09, 2011, 13:30 »
I *am* fed up with iStock and their crap, so I come here looking for discussion, commiseration and ideas from my peers and fellow contributors. Instead, all I get is the mad screechings of an obsessed ex-buyer on this and every other thread with the word iStock in the title.
5
« on: April 09, 2011, 12:20 »
If you don't like reading my opinions or my posts, it's been said before, but I'll say it again, USE THE IGNORE BUTTON. It's absolutely stupid and childish to call someone a "hater". So photoagogo, if you don't like what you are reading from me, you are free to agogo go away.
There wouldn't be anything left to read here if I did that.
6
« on: April 09, 2011, 12:01 »
If you've got no stake in iStock and you just repeatedly troll these forums stirring up hated for no reason other than you hate the company, then yes, you're a hater. That's you caspixel. You're obsessed with something that's nothing to do with you.
The others who are campaigning to send clients elsewhere because they'll benefit are just activists, right or wrong, but since they have something at stake they're perfectly justified in being annoyed with iStock and taking those actions.
As far as I can see you have no work with iStock and don't buy anything from there. You aren't a contributor to any of the agencies we discuss here just a designer who decided that they were paying too much for artists work and decided to continually rubbish the agent that other members rely on for their whole income.
I think it's a given that iStock's behaviour pisses its contibutors off, I just don't understand why you can't let it go since you have no involvement on either side of the buying or selling fence.
7
« on: March 23, 2011, 10:19 »
Good job we've got haters like you to keep us informed.
8
« on: September 16, 2010, 05:50 »
From all your comments I see only fear of leaving Istock. This kind of fear I often see in people who live in a horrible marriage, but are still afraid to break it. The "marriage" between Istock and it's exclusives right now I see only as a weird, little bit sick relationship, where Istock is a sadistic partner, and exclusives are the partner who suffers.
Go out people, branch to other agencies, you can't lose. If you could just look at the situation from outside..... I really don't understand what more do you expect from a business partner like this? Do you expect that you will somehow prosper if you stay exclusive there??
I see only the next "good" change coming next year, and then you will realize that you lost one more year in trusting to someone who doesn't appreciate your talent, your work, and you as a person.
I'm seeing this every day. Istock did something that I see in my country all the time, and that's what scared . out of me.
This is wise advice and an excellent metaphor, we would do well to heed it.
9
« on: June 08, 2010, 13:05 »
Yes I'm afraid the quality and consistency of iStock's reviewing process has gone astray. They've obviously got a new bunch of reviewers who are desperately trying to prove their reviewing chops. I always thought the review philosophy on iStock was 'look for a reason to approve' in Bruce's day, now it's the complete opposite. I'm a long time exclusive contributor and am dismayed by the way reviews have started going.
Unfortunately I feel I can't complain there or use my correct artist name here, which must either be a sign of my complete paranoia or a poor reflection on the way they deal with any critical dissent over there.
10
« on: June 03, 2009, 03:01 »
What? You'll be telling me Canada isn't part of the United States next... sheesh! Sorry is Ireland not in UK? Maybe Ireland have its own international tax system?
The Republic of Ireland, or Eire, is not UK. Missed some geography classes? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland
Northern Ireland is not Ireland. Ireland (sites .ie) is another country. You know, Dublin, St. Patrick, U-2, Guiness beer, James Joyce, Cliffs of Moher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland
11
« on: April 24, 2009, 12:54 »
12
« on: March 23, 2009, 08:26 »
It's a strange new phenomenon - a capitalist cult with disciples who will work for free.
13
« on: January 31, 2009, 19:30 »
You should be aware that if you decide to drop your exclusivity with IS, all the images you uploaded as an exclusive will be removed. This is done so that people do not take advantage of the increased upload limits and then switch back to non-exclusive once their portfolio is 'large enough'. (Here's the contract - see Section 12.a.(i))
Those deciding to go exclusive would do well to take this into account before 'making the jump'. A good strategy might be to hold back on uploading your best imagery until the two or three weeks immediately preceding your exclusivity application.
That really is messed up. From the 'go exclusive' material you would never realise that is the case. It looks like those who are already exclusive has no choice but to stay that way if they have large portfolios. The way they sell it suggests its a simple, 'go independent, wait 90 days, go exclusive again' kind of deal. This small print is really sneaky. Thanks for pointing it out. I bet most exclusives don't realise what would actually happen.
14
« on: January 19, 2009, 17:41 »
Well i went and de-activated some files this evening and found it quite hard.I found myself remembering where i took the shots.The magic of photography i suppose capturing moments in time....
The reasons i stated on the 8 de-activated files ranged from not suitable as stock,i can shoot better and there are far more better photos of flowers in the collection than mine.
I shall review my portfolio on a regular basis from now on and trim the fat !
You've only got 522 to go, keep at it...
15
« on: January 12, 2009, 09:49 »
My point of contributing to lots of different micro sites was made if you earn a living at being a photograph and seems the sensible course to follow.
I do see the majority of complaining on istockphoto from exclusive contributors.Loose the crown and upload to the many micro sites now online to make more money.
I use my photography as a hobby and pleased that i make a bit of money at it as well.
This may be the new reality for full time contributors if iStock keeps letting exclusive sales slide in the way they're doing now according to the complaints on iStock's forum. Expect a stiff warning from Lobo on said forums to follow for daring to complain in public shortly.
16
« on: December 20, 2008, 08:27 »
I'd also be very interested to know - and I'm happy to receive the information privately if that's what you'd prefer.
17
« on: November 27, 2008, 16:04 »
You betcha! It wouldn't be iStock without a conspiracy being stoked.
18
« on: November 27, 2008, 15:25 »
Not only is it inclusive, it's a PR-friendly people shot rather than a boring old bunch of flowers or a picture of a crummy boat with peeling paint or someone's dog or... you get the idea. 95% of images that go through the queue are dross. What a happy coincidence that the exact 4tth millionth file wasn't.
I don't know why they pretend - do they think everyone outside Calgary is an idiot?
19
« on: October 10, 2008, 06:56 »
Big drop of downloads at Istock since august for me too, some rejections for " we can't find a focus point...", each time I send a ticket and they finally accept the pictures, they don't like non-exclusive partners... 
It's not just non-exclusives. I find rejections always increase when there are new inspectors - I think they feel they have to be critical to 'prove' themselves then after a few months when they've settled in approvals and rejections become more reasonable. Of course, you'll always get one or two ballbreakers, but spreading your uploads can mitigate against getting one.
20
« on: June 04, 2008, 14:04 »
I'm too far in with iStock to become unexclusive now (3000+ images) but if I was starting again or had a portfolio of hundreds rather than thousands I would go the independent route. Not because there's anything wrong with iStock - they're pretty good to their contributors by and large and have been a major success for me - just to spread the risk and lessen the blows from ebb and flow.
Pages: [1]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
