Quote from: jsnover on February 05, 2009, 12:55

I do take issue with the bucketloads of factual errors in a sloppily reported story.

Jo Ann,

Please can you point out just a few of the 'factual errors' out of the 'bucketloads' you have identified? I'm struggling to see any at all.


Despite all the hysteria on the IS forum I think it is quite a reasonable article. (NB: Is it actually part of the contract as an admin or inspector to rush out and and post appropriate woo-yahs or boo-hisses when called upon? Surely that sort of behaviour is far more myopic and biased?).

As far as I'm concerned Jon Oringer has arguably been more responsible than any other individual for the 'invention' of microstock. It was because of his aggressive marketing and referral programme that I first became aware of microstock (via a cheeky referral on Fred Miranda). I only found out about IS later, ironically enough, from the SS forums.

In over 4 years with SS I've sold more licenses than I have on IS, DT and FT combined.

SS was the first micro agency to offer subscriptions and most of the others have followed with their own versions but nothing like as successfully.

SS was the first micro agency to be available in multiple languages __ again most of the others have followed suit.

SS was the first micro agency to offer video footage __ again most of the others have followed suit.

SS was the first micro agency to offer editorial images. Quite a few have followed them.

SS is the first micro agency to arrange access and press passes to newsworthy events, etc.

Yes SS applied all these concepts, already existing in traidtional stockfor years, to the real new concept created by istock.

You have an useful "basic standars" tutorial here:

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=524

Let me have a smile over these comments about "at the beginning it was different, stock atmosphere has changed". Back in 2005 and 2004, you could read exactly the same type of comments on IS at several forums. "Dictatorship" (because some rejection, or the fact that you couldn't talk about other competing microsites in the forum etc), "unfriendly" (because of Peebert) etc. One rise from 10 cents to 20 cents was seen as unbearable ans as the herald of coming disaster for some people, Actually, nothing at all has changed at this respect. Anybody whose memory isn't' playing tricks at him should agree with that.

Hey Stacey,

As strictly a buyer, I have to tell you that it is more than just the best match changes that have affected your sales. Not all buyers use the best match option for searching (I have never used the best match option). So few seem to want to believe it, but it is the constant price increases that have turned so many of us buyers off. Slowly, as our credits packages have been spent, many have gone off  and spent their money on sites where $1 still = 1 credit and large images are still under $5. You can't say this anymore over on the iStock forums anymore without getting accused of being a whiner or otherwise attacked. And people can attack and deny all they want, but it won't change the fact that iStock, by their constant increases, has shut out so many of the small designers, among others, who made the place what it was. I haven't bought a large image from iStock in I don't even know how long. Probably in a year. And I've drastically cut my spending there. And I have talked with other designers who share the same sentiments.

I think it was the worst possible move for iStock to hike the prices up like they did this past January, considering the economic climate. And the fact that other sites are still offering photos for less. Dreamstime has over 600 images for FREE. It's sad really. It's the pink elephant in the room over at iStock.

The business of giving away images for free it's not a business, it's the reverse. Call it want you want but is not the point of microstock.

The idea that IS is making less money because of "price hikes" doesn't seem accurate. Look at the published data last year, look at the more than one million $ in royalties payed weekly to contributors. Calculate what that means. Sales doesn't seem to have plummeted at all (even if it's true that everyday are distributed among more contributors, it's almost impossible to upload quality at a rate that avoids your portfolio being diluted). Revenue for many contributors (maybe with the exception that those who have been hit but the best match changes) grows, and grows at a pleasant rate (that's mi case). Prices are more than reasonable. You always will be able to buy for less at any aspects of life, from a house, to a car to a meal, but often you get (in quality or choice) what you pay for. 

Having read scores of your posts on this theme at the IS forums I can avoid the feeling that you prefer to forget that some of us,contributors, have expenses in the order of 8.000 dollarsjust in gear (better camera,better lenses, new computer to support the new's camera's files, software etc), to be able to offer better quality to customers. Or that one session alone --not a special one, of course-- can go over 400. And the shooting hours and the  endless hours of editing etc. Would you really prefer to get the product of that for free or for a dime's price that never would met the expenses??? For what I read, I infer that your answer would be yes.

The really sad part is that at Istock or at any other site,the prices at what images are sold are almost always just an almost invisible part of the cost of the printing price for this file, not to talk of the ad space bougth in magazines or the web in the case of advertisements.

best match changes must surely test the faith of many istock exclusives. When things go bad the question of hedging on other sites must surely come up. But...what about the next best match change? Especially at the moment with a radically new best match in the wings, I guess no one is prepared to jump ship until they see how it pans out.

On another note (and since a few people have asked why be exclusive on istock), I think it's a common phenomenon that something that causes such strong emotional involvement as the best match (highs and lows) actually binds people to the group/activity. Like cults, or gambling.

This is not a change disfavouring exclusives: for what I've read, it's just a temporary brief change favouring "more than two years old sucessful files" with data-mining purposes. Things should come back to normality soon, after all, if IS wants no-exclusives turning to exclusives they have to communicate the message that doing that sales will increase. For what is read in forums, comission increase won't compesate for itself the loss of income at the oher six or seven significant micro-sites.

Quote from: RT on January 26, 2009, 04:26

If you spent as much time trying to improve your skills rather than trying to make money off the backs of other peoples talent (or lack of in this case) you might find it pays better.

Apart from Dreamstime which give you a payment for just referring people I can't see anybody making any money from this, ( I notice you've kept the Dreamstime referral just for yourself) your site is aimed at freeloaders and the sort of people that trawl the internet searching for sites like yours are not the sort of people that will buy an image, no matter how cheap it is, but they are the type that 'cclapper' has highlighted and will no doubt increase the number of images that are being ripped off each day, especially if they're willing to download an image that is so cr*p that none of the hundreds of microstock sites would even accept it.

As 'flemishdreams' mentioned above why anybody would want to be associated with a site like yours is beyond me.

I only hope that when your site fails which it will, you will be out of pocket.

And please drop the smokescreen of trying to help others make money, this is pure and simply just another tacky referral site.

In my first post I asked people not to trash it until they see the results. All your arguments are based only on what you think, no core data to proof them.

I don't understand why do you want this website to fail so desperately (do you see it as a competition for your pictures?)

I'm sorry to disappoint you with this graph which is showing how the website is ' failing '


Facts:
Unique visitors: 2,300 a day
A year ago: 900 a day

All I do is that I give you an opportunity to get something from your pictures if the agencies rejected them. Not interested? Fine by me.

Somebody else will surely enjoy this option.

The more traffic, the worst. This is just about giving away images and rigths, risking model-realase conflicts and lawsuits, and contributin to a culture of "prhotos for commercial use should be free".

Not that it really matters since I live part-time in this tiny country bordering to Germany and France (the Netherlands have the same tax) which don't apply the tax. Sales of empty media went down drastically here.

Sio, I don't understand why are you so angry. Buy the media in the country without taxes, and problem solved without need of worrying about ethics.

Quote from: ljooc on January 05, 2009, 12:23

Thanks everyone for the very lively discussion indeed. I really appreciate your first hand experience as a user/photographer/designer.

To clarify: Yes,  I already know PC well. My Mac knowledge is skimpy. had  a PowerMac desktop once and played with Illustrator on it. I did not have it long enough though because the persistent humming noise when it is on sleep mode drove me nuts. I sold it after a week. I actually did like the way folders and programs are displayed on Mac, it is design friendly and very intuitive. Although Vista is trying to do the same with its browser screen. My PC's crush a lot since I have too many programs running at the same time and they don't seem to like each other, I am somewhat tired of the hacks and software viruses lurking at PC and having to be on guard all the time, updating the anti virus softwares. For programming work, PC is definitely more suitable, more programs have been written for PCs and that is an important criteria to me.

The dual licenses will be costly. Having given much thoughts to all your advice and comments, I think a good solution is to get a new PC laptop for my normal work (writing/Photoshop,programming stuffs), then try to find a used Mac (a mini) or an old ibook and work with that and see if I can/should make a definitive switch at a later date.

thanks again
jc

I still don't believe that dual licenses are necessary, but...


Check out the refurbs at the online Apple store as well. The selection changes daily and you can get some good prices. Everything is certified and comes with a 1 year guarantee, which is more than you'll get buying from somebody on ebay.

Good luck with whatever you decide!

With Apple there's less choice, and that means that all is more expensive. Way more. I've used both and thre's not big difference, once you are familiar with the software. Mac is fancier, yes, but my last PC, running Lunux or Windows XP (I'm not fond of Vista) goes smooth and great. It costed me almost the half what a Mac with similar specs would have cost me.

The fact is there's nothing to find. Closed threads use to be redundant themes, or people insisting in discussing ad nauseam themes that have been already and recently discussed ad nauseaum.  Forums, specially the main forum, has to have a functionality that makes it worth of reading. they wouldn't be useful with scores of threads talking about the same theme. 

I understand that some may resent it, but there are original ideas as well. Work and talent produce them. And in my country, plagiarism is a crime, not flattery.

The concept is original enough to discard the possibiliy of a coincidence.  There's nothing you can do? You can't say that until you have filed a complain witht the sites where that has happened. I would do it without hesitating a second: make a polite complain telling what has happened. For what I know, in the past, at certain sites these kind of complains, when subtantiated, have given results.

Not on me, Cas. I've almost doubled last year income.