|
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 - wolfman
1
« on: February 27, 2014, 20:59 »
^ I'm pretty sure the entire Getty experience is at 20%....
2
« on: January 20, 2014, 02:46 »
The majority of people deleting networks seem to be inspectors in my case anyway...
3
« on: February 05, 2013, 05:21 »
I'd say that's when many companies, review budgets for the year and instigate new cost saving measures
4
« on: January 26, 2013, 08:23 »
Agreed Michael - a smarter approach which begs the question why didn't they think of following the upload rules for wholly owned Getty content when they first started ingesting it... would have softened the blow a lot...
5
« on: January 25, 2013, 20:59 »
That DMCA is wrong tho isn't it? He wasn't hosting the copyrite images on his site, he was hotlinking to googles hosting? What's wrong with that? Google does it... 
6
« on: January 21, 2013, 17:39 »
One of my facebook friends just posted your article to their page, and another said they knew nothing about this. I'd encourage everyone here to let your networks on facebook and twitter know about this, flood the #istockphoto #istock twitter hashtag with this info the more people that know the more effect this will have....
7
« on: January 19, 2013, 05:10 »
I dont think it will affect istock much even if 2/3 leave. getty can always bring over more wholly owned, unique content where they dont need to pay royalties to anyone. And there will always be people who want to go exclusive.
If it wasnt for the Microsoft/Googlegate drama I would have been happy in my combination of photo exclusivity/video independence. I was really looking forward to the year. My horoscope was good 
Although the bad, often depressing communication or the complete arrogant silence, which is even worse, have made the forums an uncomfortable place to be for quite a while. I think this whole community thing, just doesnt work for getty. neither does the public transparency with working openly on this thing called "the internet". But somehow, it just doesnt go away...
Agreeing! it wont even make a dent. The micro model is engineered to just find replacements in a few minutes or they bring in from Getty. No problem.
Perhaps it would be harder to find some nieched ports.
On another note. Many photographers at SS will have to shape up in order to stay on top. Good for competition!
Don't forget, istock grew so much because of the the crowd raving to anyone and everyone how great it was, that crowd has now turned against them on the whole. The crowd will spread the word just as fast and while there will always be people signing up I think istock might just find the traffic they get will diminish even further, I remember when their Alexa ranking was 225, what is it now? about 550, I think we can expect to see that fall further in the next 3 months. They really have done a number on themselves.
8
« on: January 18, 2013, 20:34 »
Be prepared for mass rejections and hard work submitting to top and middle tier sites . First you'll have to figure out what kind of images they want. It's quite different from Istock and it will take some time but forget landscapes people.... and be prepared for random rejections.
I still do believe that IS inspectors are the best unfortunately.....
Good luck everyone
I've been submitting to both IS and SS for over 8 years and would strongly disagree with your hypothesis. In my experience they are largely the same except that IS is a bit anal over certain issues (like isolations for example) and SS can be the same about the focal point. Other than that they are pretty much the same. My acceptance rate on IS is 87% and probably about 95% on SS in over 5000 submissions.
Just submitted my first few to SS and I know what you mean - 3 rejected for focus focal point, and they are all crisp as from a 21MP camera with "L" lens... I could begin to get a little annoyed if its the rule rather than the exception... I haven't had rejections from iS for years...
Basically SS wants front to back focus, if the foreground is outside the DOF you might get rejections
Or you just got hit by Attila! 
One was a tropical sunset, there was a minute bit of motion blur on a couple of palm trees, but at 21MP you'd have to use it hella big and be standing up close to notice it, and the other was a product type shot, also crips as - so I think maybe they were still rubbing their eyes from waking up or something - there's no appeal process at SS is there?
9
« on: January 18, 2013, 20:13 »
All approved at SS, now I just have to get my portfolio in order and give notice... interesting times!
So did you take the initial 10 test?
Yes I did - it was before that message went out.
10
« on: January 18, 2013, 20:10 »
Be prepared for mass rejections and hard work submitting to top and middle tier sites . First you'll have to figure out what kind of images they want. It's quite different from Istock and it will take some time but forget landscapes people.... and be prepared for random rejections.
I still do believe that IS inspectors are the best unfortunately.....
Good luck everyone
I've been submitting to both IS and SS for over 8 years and would strongly disagree with your hypothesis. In my experience they are largely the same except that IS is a bit anal over certain issues (like isolations for example) and SS can be the same about the focal point. Other than that they are pretty much the same. My acceptance rate on IS is 87% and probably about 95% on SS in over 5000 submissions.
Just submitted my first few to SS and I know what you mean - 3 rejected for focus focal point, and they are all crisp as from a 21MP camera with "L" lens... I could begin to get a little annoyed if its the rule rather than the exception... I haven't had rejections from iS for years...
11
« on: January 18, 2013, 19:52 »
All approved at SS, now I just have to get my portfolio in order and give notice... interesting times!
12
« on: January 15, 2013, 05:26 »
I was thinking more the vicinity of 20k, but that's semantics at this stage. I guess it all depends how scalable ktools is initially, I mean Sean got his site up and I'd imagine he didn't drop even 3k on it-could be wrong. If there's enough will there's gotta be a way...
13
« on: January 15, 2013, 05:12 »
Y'see I'd be willing to stump up something in the vicinity of 4 zeros if we could get 10 or 20 other big contributors to do the same to get the thing running... Sean?
14
« on: January 15, 2013, 01:27 »
Old, old thread alert....
15
« on: January 03, 2013, 19:16 »
Perfectly normal for iStock as far as I know.
They never were only just blog sized.
16
« on: December 29, 2012, 01:26 »
I reckon it's pretty much a given more defections are going to happen.
Quite a few high profile istockers I've been talking to are making plans - and if it does happen a couple of them will send a few shockwaves through Calgary HQ, unless of course they do special deals with specific contributors.
17
« on: December 19, 2012, 21:34 »
It is good for me, because I was about to drop to 30% which would have made me look for the express exit to independence once I got my website done, my files sorted etc...
I will still continue to build my site, but at least I can enjoy Christmas and New Year with family and friends.
My site will anyway drive the traffic to my istock lightboxes for the time being. But from next year on I will actively promote my site to build my brand. I have completly neglected that over the years. But the website can also be used to promote my workshops, or do events at my studio etc...it doesnt all have to be about stock.
And for many of us this means that they are still interested in keeping their exclusives.
At least for now.
I'm in the same boat as you and doing exactly the same thing... just gives me a bit more breathing space to get all those "ducks" in order
18
« on: December 16, 2012, 07:24 »
Not really surprising - I guess the only real info from that whole thread was how much big exclusives sales were down.
That info was pretty shocking.
Exactly. More than 'pretty shocking' in fact. It might even be 'unsustainable'. Where have I heard that before?
I was just thinking, with big time exclusives sales dropping, the old royalty system is looking a lot more sustainable now... If you do the maths, some diamond exclusives income has dropped by 50% and funnily enough 50% of diamond 40% royalty is 20% - Getty's magic royalty number... Don't believe they can't predict the Best Match, they're working it to their advantage all the time.
19
« on: December 12, 2012, 17:41 »
Sylvanworks has already stated that is the reason he left istock.
Where did he state that? I don't remember reading his reasons...
In a facebook post last week.
Wolfman, facebook friend of Sylvanworks, longtime lurker at MSG with few posts, tell me, does "wolf-man" translate into "lobo-man"? No, it couldn't, could it?
I'm flattered... you profiled me...
20
« on: December 12, 2012, 17:31 »
Sylvanworks has already stated that is the reason he left istock.
Where did he state that? I don't remember reading his reasons...
In a facebook post last week.
21
« on: December 12, 2012, 17:19 »
*No change to RCs, no revision of levels.*
Haha oh boy! Just shows the Getty really just don't understand how they screwed up, and why their traffic is taking a dive. I joined as a buyer and stayed on as a contributor. They just don't understand the crowd sourcing model. Social/Crowd sourcing has bought down dictatorships - don't think companies are immune.
Sylvanworks has already stated that is the reason he left istock. And I'm sure in the months to come that will be the reason more exclusives will be going independent.
I'll be talking to one of the biggest istock vector sellers in the next week or so, will be an interesting chat.
Meanwhile... preparing my house for a new paradigm as I leave the istock ship....
22
« on: December 09, 2012, 23:39 »
[OT] I'm looking forward to reading the December sales thread. They're claming 42,876 extra downloads over their 'expectations', although they have made their expections non-transparent, as it's not 'extra downloads over the same period last year', but
"*"Extra files" determined by aggregating the total number of downloads over the campaign period which ranges from November 19 to December 13 and comparing this data to the total number of downloads that we expect to generate during this timeframe which is based on results from a similar period of time in the previous year; any incremental downloads beyond the expected downloads for this period will constitute an extra file.
That could mean anything. Their target could be based on the worst four weeks last year (that would be a similar period of time).
It's all smoke and mirrors.
My thoughts exactly Sue. There's no way they'd admit they didn't hit their target even if they only sold 50,000 in the period they'd still somehow hit their target through shady accounting - because there was no transparency. Someone needs to audit that 5h1t. So moving some numbers around they can hit any target, and I'll guarantee it's nowhere near last year's sales - just looking at the traffic it has to be impossible, hence their new term, 'expectations' You'll notice there's never any mention of beating previous sales totals anymore - it's all expectations. Well I know what I expect.
23
« on: December 08, 2012, 15:06 »
It's quite clear from Ms Rockerfeller's post that she doesn't understand the root of the animosity to istockphoto.
The lack of communication is not the reason people are down on istock.
The money grabbing, reduction in royalty payout levels is the root of the anger.
Site not working, lack of communication, are all things that in the past we would have lived with and commiserated with istock over when we felt that we were in this together.
But now they are things that we vent our anger over because it's not a partnership now, we are the serfs, they are the master.
While income was still growing people were willing (to some extent) put up with this new relationship dynamic, they may not have been happy, but they would tolerate it.
Now incomes are dropping (almost across the board) there's much less reason for exclusives to stay exclusive. When I was earning $5k a month I would not even consider losing half that income to go non-exclusive, but now next year I will drop yet another % level, and my monthly income from istock is down to $1k there's not that much to risk by dropping exclusivity, which I will be doing in the new year - sure is going to be an interesting time, but a misguided attempt, after over a year of issues, money grabbing and falling incomes is a little too little a lot too late IMHO
24
« on: December 05, 2012, 18:40 »
I've only uploaded a handful of vectors this year - 10 maybe - I got the "Miss You" email...
My bank account is missing the 'old days' a lot more...
25
« on: November 29, 2012, 04:01 »
Last year I was easily 25k over my target, this year my RCs have halved and I'll be almost 25k under my target... absolutely abysmal....
Wow, sorry to hear that. Were you uploading new work much this year, out of curiosity?
After I saw a massive drop last year after trying to play "catchup" I haven't uploaded much at all this year. But honestly if the istock model requires me to double my portfolio each year just to keep my RCs treading water then that is pretty unsustain..... well you know the rest!
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
