pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - Snowball

Pages: [1] 2
1
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Revised Artists Supply Agreement
« on: September 06, 2011, 10:53 »

Whilst I do share many of the misgivings voiced here about the policy of putting all non-exclusive content into the PP, and I do have my doubts about the direction IS are taking with this, I would point out that the Exclusive perk isn't about being able to "opt out" - it's about being able to choose different price points, and pricing models, for different images.

Sean for instance won't have anything to do with the PP, some put in everything they can, while others put in poorly performing images hoping they'll pick up sales in the new platform.  I guess we'll see how it pans out.

Isn't choice supposed to be a good thing?

Choice is great.  Enjoy it while you still have it.

2
Software - General / Re: Keywording in lightroom
« on: September 05, 2011, 13:13 »
You can batch keyword in lightroom, but I don't think you can do categories.  Each site's category system is different. 

3
Shutterstock.com / Re: shutterstock rejecting everything,Why?
« on: September 05, 2011, 13:09 »
"...however what you are sharing does confirm what alot of us have been suspecting!"

Which is? Imho this issue looks the same as the one in the "shutterstock financial trouble" thread. Some have complaints and ppl blow it out of proportions not realizing it's just a few out of thounsands.

Sounds like it is pretty widespread.  But is it an issue of some crazy reviewers, or just Shutterstock raising standards?  I don't see a lot of photos posted, so hard to say.

4
Envato / Re: PhotoDune August Stats and Update
« on: September 05, 2011, 13:01 »

I still wonder if they were offered or negotiated a higher commission?  

The really big contributors seem to have their portfolios everywhere.  So I wouldn't be surprised if new sites offer them an incentive.  

Seeing so many big contributors accepting 25% and low EL prices from a new site just makes me more inclined to move away from microstock.


Aren't those conflicting statements?  

C'mon - does anyone really think that these sites are paying the bigwigs the same measly royalties as the rest of us peons?  Naive thinking.  

5
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia: New Subscription Commissions
« on: August 17, 2011, 10:29 »
FT is going too far.  First time I'm considering dumping them.  Sales are about half what they were anyway.  Soon it won't even be a hardship to let them go.

Seems like if I dump every site that is screwing contribs, though, that leaves only the small (no money) sites.  Then it's time to find another job.  Lots of those around these days.   ::)

6
StockXpert.com / Re: Thinkstock earning posted
« on: August 16, 2011, 17:56 »

P.S. To stockmarketer: FYI, we are not talking about IS/Thinkstock stats here.

The topic title doesn't specify that.  Maybe it should be changed to StockXpert/Thinkstock earnings.

7
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia: New Subscription Commissions
« on: August 16, 2011, 10:21 »
Funny how I now end up with the same disgustingly low subs commission that I have refused to accept with Thinkstock.  I don't think FT would try this if people had refused to use TS.  Now were all paying for it and I think it will be inevitable that SS will go the same way.

Fotolia was doing stuff like this before TS ever existed.

At the rate sales and commissions are falling at FT, pretty soon they will price themselves right into irrelevancy.   ::)

8
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Big Change at IS
« on: August 12, 2011, 10:12 »
Just for the record, I don't have a washing machine or a tumble dryer. I have a maid who hand washes my clothes and then hangs them out to dry. Although I'd love to upload my dirty washing to iStock and let them do it, but I imagine they would  reject them saying these clothes have artifacts when viewed at full size.

Yes, lots of guys have those.  I believe the correct term for her is "wife".  :)

9
Dear Abby,

My agent has been neglecting me lately.  We were so happy together five years ago when we met but things have been progressively getting worse.  He hardly pays me any attention anymore.  Do you think he's seeing someone else?

LOL!  Actually, your agent's not paying attention to anyone else either.  He's simply learned to "pleasure" himself ;D

10
Adobe Stock / Re: New Fotolia ad in Photoshop User
« on: May 30, 2011, 17:49 »

And as you said it...please, go polish your pencil!  ;)


Actually I signed up because I was correcting an idiot who was spouting off crap without having a clue what she was talking about. Plus I thought I could get into some witty online battles with retards like yourself.

Get bent.

Wow.  Do you "polish your pencil" with that mouth?!!

What a classy, witty retort.  Especially from someone who claims to make a living writing "award winning" copy.  

ETA:  Wonder how Fotolia feels about you coming into a forum frequented by their contributors and buyers and hurling abuse.  Presumably you were hired to increase their market share?   You are not representing them very well ATM.  

But then, perhaps a "seriously gifted advertising whiz" with "more tats than your average Hell's Angel" and "talent oozing out of his inky pores" is above worrying about how he is representing his client's interests in a popular industry forum... ::)  

11
I thought that photo was a pop up ad for some crummy teen clothing line!

LOL!  No accounting for taste.  Maybe the name Cindy Sherman was enough to pull in that kind of money?  I've never heard of her, but I am not much for fine art photography.

12
If people can sue McDonalds for spilling hot coffee on themselves - and WIN! - then suing Getty for that fraud debacle doesn't seem so far fetched.   :o

13
full time and really struggling this month

Same here.  My significant other is tired of me complaining all the time.  So I come here and complain to you good people instead ;)

14
iStockPhoto.com / Re: No crisis du jour at istockphoto?
« on: April 28, 2011, 16:59 »

It's true that March 2010 was spectacular for a lot of people, but I can't see any similarity between 2010 and 2011 beyond the presence of complaints.

What we're complaining about this year is what appears to be a massive own goal on iStock's part as Getty/H&F try to soak every last penny out of the business regardless of any long term damage they inflict. Last year it was complaining that April wasn't anything like as good as the amazing March.

Sort of makes me nostalgic for the complaints about ebb and flow and summer slumps from yesteryear... 

Reminds me the old cliche where the dad tells the crying kid "I'll give you something to cry about".  Looks like Getty gave us something to cry about.

15
Interesting poll.  I'd like to know the answer to this. 

16
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Another best match shift 14/4/2011
« on: April 28, 2011, 15:55 »
^^^ Makes sense.  This must be part of a last ditch effort to convince exclusives that site sales are not falling.   Even with a stacked deck the huge sales decline is becoming obvious. 

17
iStockPhoto.com / Re: No crisis du jour at istockphoto?
« on: April 28, 2011, 15:45 »
^^^Shutterstock are one of the biggest pay per download sites now.  They don't have those tiny blog pay per download commissions that istock have.  My portfolio isn't behind a lot of exclusive content.  I really don't mind if buyers go there, as I also have a much bigger portfolio there with all my recent uploads.  I stopped uploading to istock over 6 months ago.

All very good points. 

My only problem is some of my istock buyers seem to have gotten lost on the way to shutterstock and never made it there.  Maybe they are at thinkstock instead? 

18
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Another best match shift 14/4/2011
« on: April 23, 2011, 16:48 »
Still dismal.

Yep.  With Easter and spring break looming, don't expect to see much activity for the rest of the month. 

19
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Have you moved on Istockcharts?
« on: April 23, 2011, 16:37 »
Something seems to have changed again with the way istockcharts allocate positions. For a while, it was alphabetical order within your fuzzy total, i.e. if your name was Aardvark and you had 9901 dls, you'd come well above Zumba who had 9999.
Now that has changed totally. I just rolled over 10,000 on Thursday, which means I must be around 'real' position 1994.  But I'm actually showing at 1858. I can't see how it's worked out, but it's not 'actual' downloads and it's not alphabtical within fuzzy totals. It also seems not to be dl/ul ratio or dl per time on site, both of which would be useful differentiators within the fuzzy total.
Ironically for a long time when there was an 'absolute' total, I was position 1860.
I have counted my 'real' position as being c1994, so have voted for lower position/lower dls.

Strange.  Would be nice to know what methodology they are using now.  That might explain some of my growth too, but unless I know what changed I can't be sure.

20
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Buyers Bailing on Istock
« on: April 23, 2011, 16:34 »

At about 200 or 300 photographer's comments coming from about 40-50 photographers. That is precisely my point, thanks for highlighting it.

You are still just making up numbers, so from what I can see you are proving my point that you haven't done your research and don't know what you are talking about:

Quote
Before you go throwing around numbers about how many buyers posts are in this thread, you should do your due diligence and count them up.  You don't have to guess.  They're all there in black (or sometimes blue) and white.  

Hint:  There's more than 20 irate buyers quoted in just the first few pages.


I can understand why you want to argue and bicker over who posted what in this thread though, instead of addressing the larger issue that your Big Brother Istock is foundering on the rocks of their own greed and hubris.  People always want to argue semantics when they have missed the larger point.

21
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Have you moved on Istockcharts?
« on: April 23, 2011, 14:46 »
I'm moving up but my pictures are "CrapStock" just seems that sales dribble in and it must be the people above me are even worse off? :D

I don't shoot models, I shoot the overdone, over supplied, stuff and things. I can't explain why anyone buys anything of mine, but as long as they do, I'll take the spare change.

Believe it or not, I'm in the top 50% of all sellers for total sales. That's pretty sad.

If you are in the top 50% and moving up, then you must be shooting "crapstock" people want to buy.
 :)

22
iStockPhoto.com / Have you moved on Istockcharts?
« on: April 23, 2011, 11:38 »
Just for fun,  check out your position on http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/.  Have you moved up or down?  

Looking at the IS charts recently, I noticed that there are people moving UP in the charts but complaining of declining sales overall.  

What does this mean?  Well, if you are moving up, but your sales are bad, then the overall sales of the collection are most likely being redistributed among other contributors or collections, or else falling universally.  

At least that's my interpretation.  But I'm no statistician.  Will be interested in hearing other people's theories on the data as the poll progresses. 

I moved up in the charts but sales are way down.  Non-exclusive.

23
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Buyers Bailing on Istock
« on: April 23, 2011, 11:19 »

I'm just saying that there can be 5 or 10 or even 20 buyers posts quoted.... but that's a long shot from a thousand posts. A handful os buyers posts is anecdotal, a thousand would be serious.
And I may be wrong, but I don't think we have many buyers posting here, anonismously or not. Note that some contributors have posted scores of times in this discussion.

Before you go throwing around numbers about how many buyers posts are in this thread, you should do your due diligence and count them up.  You don't have to guess.  They're all there in black (or sometimes blue) and white.  

Hint:  There's more than 20 irate buyers quoted in just the first few pages.

24
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Buyers Bailing on Istock
« on: April 23, 2011, 10:50 »
If Istock had stuck to mostly just screwing contributors this thread wouldn't be up to 1107 posts

.. almost all of them written not by buyers, but for independent contributors who upload to other sites and that feell angry because istock structure of comissions to non-exclusives.

Sorry, I don't accept your premise.  From what I can see, a lot of the posts by independent contributors are quoting irate buyers whose posts are being removed from the Istock forums or buried in locked threads.  

Others are from contributors who are also buyers, and some are from buyers like Caspixel who have just had enough.  

Not to mention the abundance of posts from frightened exclusives frantically trying to convince everybody Istockphoto is not in decline, as if that will make it true.  Those posts are the most pitiful and desperate sounding ones.  So sad.

25
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Buyers Bailing on Istock
« on: April 23, 2011, 10:30 »
Maybe I didn't phrase that clearly. Are the buyers actually leaving?

The part about wishful thinking would apply to people who think that a majority of the buyers give a hoot if we get stabbed, cut up and fed to the sharks. They just want the pictures they need. I can't see buyers bailing in large numbers because of our commissions getting cut?


It seems like you are inventing an absurd assertion that nobody is making and then arguing with that.   It's an old debating tactic and very easy to spot. 

Can you point me to where anybody said that buyers are only leaving because they care about contributor conditions?

That would be a really naive position.  I haven't managed to scrounge through this whole thread, but what I have read nobody's saying that.  That would be a thread titled - "Buyers are bailing in solidarity with contributors".  LOL.  That'll be the day ;)

If the widely reported sales migrations and angry forum posts are to be believed, buyers are bailing in large numbers for a large number of reasons.  Mostly they care about their own buying experience and the prices. 

If Istock had stuck to mostly just screwing contributors this thread wouldn't be up to 1107 posts.  But no, they had to go and screw with their buyers too.  Big mistake!

Pages: [1] 2

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle