Quote from: DanP68 on May 08, 2008, 01:18

I wonder, since you are also leading a popular thread where you are considering exclusivity at iStock, if this "thank you thing" is just an excuse to get angry at SS about something else?  I say, go ahead and make the move to iStock.  You sound like you will be much happier once you do.

Wow. Way to completely misinterpret that thread and this one.

Where did I ever say that I had a problem with SS? And where did I say in the other thread that I have any plans to go exclusive with istock?

This thread is about SS contributors, and a very small number of them. The other thread is about what the istock exclusivity program would need to change to create a fair program and draw contributors like me into it. I suppose you can interpret anything I've written in any way you like, but saying that I have some issue with SS and want to make excuse to go exclusive at IS is one hell of a stretch, not to mention completely false.

I'd say it's nothing more complicated that you hitting a raw nerve with some of our more obsequious members.

Unfortunately their egos tend to be just as fragile as their "need to please" personalities, so don't be surprised by a huge outpouring of anger and distortion in their attempts to seek revenge.

Today i had 4  XSmall sells and the result is less than $1. that is where 20% shows its unfairness.

Getty call it a comping image and don't even charge for it so count your blessings.

The smart thing would be to sell the site with all it's back end contributor problems to someone who wants to invest in fixing the back end.

The Layout and Design was a true work of Art.
It is a shame that the Functionality and Critical Contributor end was never given a chance to be fixed.

Best of luck to the Z man on his next venture.

LO's back-end was run predominantly on Javascript using the usual freebie software that anyone can pick up if you know where to look. I'm not going to post a link because not only is it grossly unreliable it would break your heart to look at the source code. I've seen less bugs in a 10 year old corpse. No on second thoughts, Slappervillage is just as full of maggots and quite possibly the most bug infested site known to man. 

Just saw your work over there, very nice! 
If you would have the opportunity to work for Getty Images would you just tell them "no, sorry, but I won't fill out this stupid tax form because I live in Ireland" ?   C'mon Mr White...

Thankyou CP for your kind words. I already submit to Getty now go try and find me on there 

That aside, all this controversy prompted me to take a closer look at Photoshelter and the reason why I've come out so vocally against Mr. Shady.

As it stands, I don't believe PS is making the type of money he is waxing lyrical about. Initially the site showed much promise and after several months what we have now is a collection of snapshot style images that look more like they belong in someone's personal portfolio than on any commercial site.

90% of the images on PS are simply not going to sell and it is for that reason the IRS won't be in the slightest bit interested in this site no more than myself.

I have been unable to upload anything for about two days. Is this a problem my end or are more of you experiencing that?

Of course you haven't been able to upload anything!! The site is run by Corbis Corpus monkey's - dead ones btw - and you won't be able to until the other dudes come back off holidays and turn the lights back on.

More and more people are reporting sales.  Yesterday a photographer reported in the forums that they sold two photos that brought in $5000.

72% of the first quarter sales were RM.

And more and more "shady" characters are coming on here and registering and talking up a site that has actually sold SFA from my perspective.

Separating the hype from reality is almost a full-time job for some of us

Quote from: Contakt on May 02, 2008, 07:15

Overall he looks like he went a bid mad with the hairspray or the hair-dye I can't decide which, but that's just my honest opinion for what it's worth. 

Plus, what exactly makes him a senior executive business man?

Looks like a bloke in a cheap suit to me.

And Senior Execs don't smile, they look permanently stressed. 

Were you not going to mention the tie coz that's even worse 

I went to look at my portfolio on IS and it was gone?  I can still see the approved/waiting images but the public view just isn't there for some reason.  I sent a support ticket.  It's just a computer thing I hope.

R u sure it wasn't removed?

The market which stockmon is trying to reach is a very small one --- one that would not attract a commercial firm.  I think it's great that "one of us", who also has programming skills, has taken the time to create a program that will help us with our endeavors.  If one does not want to trust the author, than that's your choice -- but to publicly attack him because he not Bill Gates (who never has bugs in his programs) is uncalled for.

Just me $.02 worth...

Nobody is attacking anyone. I'm merely pointing out some glaring holes in his marketing approach including what I see as very basic omissions on his site.

That is not an attack, those are observations so let's make that distinction here. If you are going to get my personal details it is perfectly reasonable that I know who you are or how you can be contacted despite any claims by the author that those details are meaningless.

These sort of home-produced programs scare the heck out of me. Who are you for starters? Why on earth would you think I would want to entrust you with financially sensitive information just because you've wrote a program?

You're probably a very honest, hardworking individual, but the application is full of bugs, your website is lacking to say the least, your contact details amount to an email and there's nothing to tell us who you are or how to contact you should you be working on a sophisticated little Trojan horse?

And stockmon.110mb.com doesn't come up on a whois search?

So get real mister. If you want come on here and market a product at the very least get someone who speaks marketing English and be a little bit more professional in your approach, because right now I wouldn't go within a thousand yards of you or your application and I trust you now understand why.

I really am perplexed as to why this subject is debated so much and especially when it revolves around one specific site whose interest is entirely self-serving.

There is no compelling reason whatsoever to go exclusive with any particular site and especially with the growth potential we're witnessing lately from some other big earners like SS and Fotolia, etc.

IS clearly have a well placed agenda to encourage you to go exclusive but this point has already been argued on numerous occasions.

Who, at the end of the day, will be the main beneficiary? Certainly not the contributor. By going exclusive you are effectively discounting a huge portion of income from other sites and anyone who tells you otherwise is seriously misguided.

If your portfolio sells well on IS at the higher rate will going exclusive compensate you for the loss of earnings you could be generating from other sites? Of course not! But that for me is the key question and nobody has been able to give me a convincing answer.

Contakt,

I can't do Crestock the disservice of dedicating any more of their time to a discussion that seems to have lost any direction. I represent a professional organization, and, therefore am obligated to handle myself in as professional manner as I can. I don't know who you are so this discussion ends here. In the clear and simple terms, everything is re-invested into Crestock and its sustainable growth.

The discussion most certainly has not lost direction, it's just not going the direction you want it to go hence your rapid exit. You've painted yourself into a corner by claiming you are doing a great service for photographers when in actual fact it is Crestock who are the main beneficiaries.

You have not addressed that question and I'm not in the slightest bit surprised you did not because let's face it, you've been made to look extremely foolish with your exaggerated claims of munificence.

As to who I am? I'm sorry I fail to see the relevance of that question or why that's important when it comes to addressing some of the key issues raised here?

That aside, your claim that "everything is re-invested into Crestock and its sustainable growth," is hardly adequate an explanation as to why you deliver one of the lowest rates of return to its contributors and then have the temerity to think they should thank you for exploiting their hard-earned work.

I'm sorry Mr. Josh, you haven't represented your brand well on here and judging by your hasty departure you have no intention of answering my questions either.

IMO, you have engaged in what amounts to little more than a highly polished whitewash. But since we're both in the business of PR, trying to exploit photographers with lousy returns and then humiliating them in the same breath requires a little bit more than amateur PR sound-bytes.

Try raising your overall returns and issuing a public apology to those you've humiliated and then see if you can gain some new found respect among those members that Judge Ross has so sadistically vilified.

Not many of the sites take the time (and risk) to comment and give feedback here.  I am very appreciative of the ones who do.
[/quote author=josh]
Its possible that the other sites are much wiser in this regard.

That is wholly inaccurate. I can understand Leaf's appreciation that people like yourself turn-up as its inadvertently an endorsement of the popularity of the site but I'm not so convinced that there's any risk involved.

Plenty of other MS spokespersons have picked up the sword and shield on MSG and survived to tell the tale but not surprisingly there's a common theme amongst all of you.

You all seem to be firefighting! You've either alienated your contributor database as we've witnessed here to date or you're struggling on the revenue front. In fact I would go as far as to say; that if you're even thinking of running an MS site in the future come on here first, pour yourself a good strong brew and spend a good day reading the comments because they are invaluable.

Without laboring the issue, I think it's difficult enough as it is to run an MS site without pissing off your suppliers on several fronts. Crestock have managed to do so with extraordinary speed and Judge Ross is a prime example of someone who needs to be locked up and thrown in his own dungeon.

I've been warned against excessive forum activity. It would appear that there is a religion of 'down with the stock sites', which is a little counter-productive to say the least when there are individuals spending millions on marketing your images for you. We hope that people's faith in us will not be reflected in forum activity, but rather in our abilities to handle uploaded images and to sell them.

All the best

This conspiracy theory you've come up with is pure self-serving hyperbole. I've seen it happen time and time again, whenever a business is in a corner paint yourself as a victim and illicit the sympathy vote to get the voters back on side. No such luck Josh. That's not going to wash with anyone. The majority of the folk on here are very supportive of their main revenue generators but they are very unforgiving when you humiliate people unnecessarily or start acting the maggot like Crestock have been doing lately.

To suggest that this is an endemic, forum driven attack on MS sites in general is pure baloney and one of the oldest tricks in the book. You're going to have to go back and brush up on your PR skills before trying to pull that one because it is just too transparent.