|
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 - LostOne
26
« on: September 17, 2010, 09:42 »
Um, again, DNY59 is a regular contributor. Sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble.
A user with 790000+ downloads can hardly be called regular contributor 
27
« on: September 17, 2010, 09:41 »
I'm not sure about the percent, but sales gone crazy last few days. 
Im having and awful month. Maybe a change in search?
28
« on: September 16, 2010, 18:01 »
Next you guys are going to tell me you guys didn't know that inspectors can self-inspect their images (or at least they used to be able to).
Dull colors, overexposed, omg what's with the keywords. And this guy wants to put it in Vetta..... On second though this image looks familiar, where have I seen it before? Oh right, I just uploaded it this morning. Vetta it is!
29
« on: September 16, 2010, 13:57 »
WOW! One of the new "Agency" accounts in Ingram publishing, look what Camrocker just found:
Posted By Camrocker:
Ok, so maybe Vetta files are so exclusive already?
Vetta file Same file on IngramPublishing
This is getting funnier every time I check the forums. OMG!
30
« on: September 16, 2010, 03:57 »
^^^ I saw it __ it's excellent!
I can't stop laughing, thanks for pointing it out
31
« on: September 15, 2010, 01:21 »
Respect!
First they locked the topic but now they deleted it. They don't wanna let others know what you did.
32
« on: September 14, 2010, 07:09 »
I would go on a strike in front of IS HQ if it weren't across the globe. Thats a negative side of doing global/online business.
33
« on: September 12, 2010, 10:01 »
Disclosing their financial statements won't make a difference. The result will show that they're either greedy *insult removed* or inefficient. Either result will lead to people giving them the flick. IS has screwed themselves Royally.
My thoughts exactly.
34
« on: September 11, 2010, 03:17 »
The facts that there wasn't any reference to the change in yesterday's Contact Sheet for contributors, and that no more answers have been provided in the forum, could indicate they could be planning some softening changes (and that wouldn't be a fast or easy task, because they should satisfy many people, newbies, veterans, independants, exclusives without losing some increase in their margins, as they pretend).
But maybe I'm wrong.
I think they were just afraid that even more people would know about it. Not everyone reads the forums.
35
« on: September 11, 2010, 03:10 »
What he's saying is not that the company isn't profitable, in fact he's implying profits are increasing. Management just seems to be irked by the fact that profit is decreasing as a proportion of revenue, even though that is because they are rewarding those who have caused the profit increase in the first place.
I think it's technically called being greedy *insult removed*
Exactly. And they have the nerve to tell us that in our face! *!!!
36
« on: September 11, 2010, 03:06 »
So best match is gonna look like this now AC(Getty coming in), Vetta, E+, E, non E. I guess buyers will have to look another 5 pages deeper to find my images.
37
« on: September 11, 2010, 03:02 »
This almost reads like a fairy tale. Unfortunately for Kelly I'm too old for fairy tales.
PS: I'm wondering if he would be interested in all of our personal stories. How we have bills to pay, kids to feed,... I guess he doesn't have much of those problems as a CEO.
38
« on: September 10, 2010, 17:23 »
After this debacle at IS I will never consider any kind of exclusivity.
40
« on: September 09, 2010, 07:37 »
We could start filling out our queues with over/under exposed noisy images. Or images that have no potential to sell but are perfectly lit. Inspectors would have to work, server costs would still go up, but it wouldn't bring them any profit.
Use your time and energy more profitably by uploading your images to all the other agencies __ just not Istock.
I was joking. About the upload limits. You can find them here: http://www.istockphoto.com/xnet.phpDirect link to the topic: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=238102
41
« on: September 09, 2010, 07:27 »
We could start filling out our queues with over/under exposed noisy images. Or images that have no potential to sell but are perfectly lit. Inspectors would have to work, server costs would still go up, but it wouldn't bring them any profit.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4PN7Xbexq4[/youtube]
43
« on: September 08, 2010, 07:36 »
I sometimes look at someone and think he/she could use a photoshop job. You know like teeth whitening, acne removal, skin softening,...
44
« on: September 07, 2010, 16:24 »
I think this thread can now be closed
45
« on: September 07, 2010, 16:11 »
So now canister levels are meaningless. This is a real kick in the teeth to the exclusives who helped build the business, but maybe haven't had as much time to keep up their portfolios in the past year.
I am BD on istock and I don't sell anything close to the 1,400,000 files per year that would be necessary to keep the measly 20%. ...
Actually they don't require 1,400,000 files. They requirement is for "credits". My account works out to about 3.34 credits for each sale so the 1,400,000 requires about 419,000 sales. I certainly won't be looking at 20% but maybe you have a chance.
fred
Lisa sold 200.000 files altogether, even she won't be keeping the 20% royalty. Looks like Yuri will be the only one from the non-exclusives to be up at the 20%?
46
« on: September 07, 2010, 15:59 »
Changes like this happen for a reason, their previous business models were most likely unsustainable. Add in the fact that the US is entering a depression and the future just looks very bleak.
They are selling more than ever and their business model is unsustainable. Geez. If it weren't for recession they would double their earnings then. It's just greedy.
47
« on: September 07, 2010, 15:54 »
Just wait for a few days for their old and verified tactics. They will offer something that is just slightly less awful than this and people will start saying "Thanks istock".
48
« on: September 07, 2010, 15:45 »
I know there is a stream of replies, but I just want to figure out something. If I am silver exclusive and I sell approximatively 4 to 6 pictures a day,mostly medium and large sizes... How much will I loose ??
If anyone have two minutes to explain me this new structure, I would appreciate it. I would certainly reconsider my exclusivity if I loose anything near 5% and more
Lets say you sell 5 pictures every single day and lets say they are all large or medium. The average of medium and large which is (10+15)/2 = 12.5. This means you earn 60 credits per day (5 pictures * 12.5 credits). That is 21900 credits in a year. That would get you 30% royalty with the new structure. You would need 40000 credits in a year for the next canister. PS: You can see how many credits you earned this and the last year in the stats page. It says redeemed credit total.
49
« on: September 07, 2010, 15:40 »
Wow! This is bad across the board.....exclusives and non-exclusives. A few months ago they enticed contributors to go exclusive with the guaranteed next level (total downloads) and now we're being hit with this. Glad I didn't make the jump, but I'm still getting a big cut.
I don't think there will be many more contributors going exclusive after this. I think we may see more of them dropping the crown than getting one.
50
« on: September 07, 2010, 15:18 »
Unless I'm misunderstanding this, I'll be earning 17% next year at istock.
20% was pretty low in the industry. Less than that is just a joke.
Me too. Was close to going exclusive, now I'm thinking about dropping IS altogether.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
