|
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 - caspixel
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 41
226
« on: May 15, 2011, 09:43 »
Im earning slightly more, so what? not important
So it isn't the money that's going to make you happy?
Why should it? All he wants is enough to buy a new lens cap anyway. 
227
« on: May 14, 2011, 09:21 »
I would have to disagree. There is only a very small percentage of my library that I recycle - mostly textures and abstracts - but not every photo works for every client. And I certainly wouldn't use the same recognizable photos for multiple clients. Sometimes clients chose the same photos, but usually they are buying the photos themselves. I don't think it would look good to prospective clients if they see the same image used over and over for different clients in a designer's portfolio.
228
« on: May 13, 2011, 17:33 »
As much as we have our pet peeves about iStock, keep in mind that other sites may allow far less freedom of speech. I cannot imagine that other sites will allow any dissenting threads to continue into hundreds and thousand posts.
Fortunately, the other sites don't have as many f-ups as istock, thereby not requiring dissenting threads to continue into the hundreds and thousands of posts. 
LOL
229
« on: May 13, 2011, 09:57 »
I don't think it's the end of iStock...yet. That will come in January when they announce yet another price increase. My guess is that they are going to raise the price of credits and bump up all the colletions. P+ pricing will then become the lowest regular collection pricing tier and everything will go up from there. They will keep the dollar bin so they can still claim you can get photos for just one credit. OR, they will only keep XS at 1 credit in the main collection and everything else will be bumped up.
230
« on: May 11, 2011, 16:39 »
Lobo acknowledged that the my_uploads page wasn't updated with the amount paid. For some of these "fix" payments they update the csv (I think only in the monthly version) with a column that says "Admin adjustments" or something like that. Nothing itemized, just a lump sum for the month.
Someone else in that thread referenced my long ignored suggestion about detailed, downloadable sales (& refund) data. It's really important for contributors to have detailed records of money going in and out of our accounts.
Detailed records wouldn't stop outright fraud, but it does make mistakes easier to catch (in addition to giving us information with which to build a spreadsheet to track things).
Given that we can't get even one agency to do this, it's probably complete pie in the sky to think about an agency-wide CSV format in which they'd agree to report our data - common codes for sales, licenses, etc. so we could track all agencies without doing something specific for each one.
I'm hoping at some point some banking regulator gets hold of this mess and makes the agencies act like our money matters.
Even when they say they are "fixing" things, who even knows when contributors are getting paid the correct amount of money. I know discrepancies were noticed in the past. They really do need some kind of investigation. I don't know how you guys can stand the uncertainty and lack of trust.
231
« on: May 11, 2011, 15:35 »
So now they are saying the issue was resolved and contributors paid, but the information never updated. Mmm hmmmm.  I firmly believe that if contributors weren't being conscientious and noticing these things that they would never get paid for some of these "errors" and "bugs". It only takes someone making it public to get any attention at all. And it just makes you wonder how many things *aren't* getting noticed.
232
« on: May 11, 2011, 09:20 »
233
« on: May 11, 2011, 08:57 »
Still very slow for me too. And yesterday it wouldn't even load.
234
« on: May 10, 2011, 16:45 »
My guess is that iStock is going to see how this "price increase" of the P+ photos affects sales. If they see minimal to no change, there will be a price increase across the board with the P+ prices being the new base and everything will go up from there.
Good thinking but I'm not sure they need to. Assuming most independents uprate the best-selling 10% of their portfolios to P+ then those will capture about 60% of sales anyway. Istock will then still have plenty of cheap images to market themselves as a low cost supplier ... but of course those cheap images will be at the back of searches because they're the ones that get largely ingored.
Never underestimate their greed. 
235
« on: May 10, 2011, 16:21 »
My guess is that iStock is going to see how this "price increase" of the P+ photos affects sales. If they see minimal to no change, there will be a price increase across the board with the P+ prices being the new base and everything will go up from there.
236
« on: May 10, 2011, 16:11 »
You're supposed to just be talking about the missing Getty one, I guess.
Probably. So no posts from anyone else with other images that have sold, but show zero downloads ever gets to see the light of day.
237
« on: May 10, 2011, 10:13 »
What was with the "Stay on topic" warning from kelvinjay. Seems to me, people talking about not being credited for downloads in a "zero downloads" thread *is* on topic. I'm sure that thread will be locked if more of that nefarious behavior comes to light.
238
« on: May 09, 2011, 21:54 »
Looks like there has been another download/no payment issue!
I just found one of mine as well in a flyer insert for well known childrens cd's. I found the link because they credit istock (and me) but i have zero downloads on the file. I sent a ticket to support.http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=5And who wants to start placing bets now that the admins will never give an answer as to what has happened?
240
« on: May 09, 2011, 17:23 »
This is definitely an ongoing epic fail:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=4#post6372250
More than two months and he has not been paid for his high res image downloaded from Getty. And not a single word from admins about it, publicly or privately.
Joyze has finally said she will look into the matter;
"Hey Folks, this was just brought to my attention by one of our moderators. I'm looking into this right now and will contact the contributor directly with the details."
How nice. After over two months someone finally responds.
241
« on: May 08, 2011, 14:31 »
Does Getty's invoicing actually work the same way as iSTock's? On Alamy a sale can take months to get reported and longer to get cleared. Do we know if Getty waits until it gets paid before reporting a sale? If so, delays of several months could be normal.
On the thread people would have thought it would have been paid by now. I think someone mentioned a two month delay and the photo sold in February, apparently.
242
« on: May 08, 2011, 12:25 »
I think the reason that it seems like nobody at IS cares is because at this point they really don't care. I'm sure morale there is extremely low, they get angry calls from customers all day, they get badgered in the forums by contributors. I have to imagine it's not a very pleasant place to work at the moment. And in that kind of environment and with so many fires to tend to and extinguish, everything just falls through the cracks.
From what we are led to believe though (in forum posts from a couple admins - rogermexico & JJRD), is that everyone loooooves working there and that the attrition rate is very low. Yeppers.
244
« on: May 07, 2011, 22:31 »
Well istock does have a nice return policy so in some cases, when it is not a last minute "gotta have it now and use it immediately" thing, buyers can fill out the destruction document and get their money/credits back.
Possibly, but I bet most buyers don't realize they can do that and are just resigned to the fact that the prices are more expensive than they thought. I recently had a client send me some photos from iStock, clearly not realizing there are various collections, and their comment was, "iStock is really expensive!". I also had another client who I had to instruct on the different price levels and to avoid the blue and gold cameras and the crown with the '+', especially since they will be buying multiple high res images. If I didn't tell them, they would not have known.
245
« on: May 07, 2011, 17:33 »
I was forced to charge a customer for a 150 credit image recently because I didn't see that it was an Agency image.
This has to be music to the ears of people at IS. It tells them this plan is working exactly as intended.
Very short sighted though. I doubt she, or most others, will make that mistake again.
I have to wonder if that is how many (most?) Agency (and Vetta?) pics are getting sales. People don't shop at microstock *expecting* to see those kinds of prices.
246
« on: May 06, 2011, 16:49 »
as for the icon.. it is probably a cache issue as I recall a lot of people saw blank spaces when they added the exlusive+ icon too.
Why do they seem to have so many caching issues.
247
« on: May 06, 2011, 14:57 »
I'd label that a fail. You can barely see the '+'. Couldn't they have picked a little lighter color?
248
« on: May 06, 2011, 14:47 »
I now see a Photos plus icon - this is what I posted in the IS thread. Doesn't look to me as if they've really thought this through.
The reason I think this matters is that buyers need to be able to look at files and see what price things fall into. The ability to choose collections in search is important, but so is the visual confirmation shown with the thumb in search results
So now I see a new icon in the iStock firmament here. The Photos+ icon is separate from the file type icons - it's listed with the crown and other collections icons.
I don't see an icon. It's a blank space. Nor do I see an icon for Vetta Video. Weird.
249
« on: May 06, 2011, 13:09 »
I read Lobo's argument as to why this was really a suggestion, but I don't buy it. The suggestion forum is a black hole - it's a way of sweeping unwanted discussions under the rug.
I didn't see any point in having a call unless there was something iStock wanted and couldn't get - the only reason they did anything for video and illustration. There wouldn't have been that announcement of Vetta expansion with no content. However it seemed to be a perfectly legitimate topic for the Discussion forum. Just embarassing to iStock.
Didn't iStock said they wanted to do more of these conference calls (when the original fraud call was being discussed). With the quick dismissal of that post, I'd have to guess that is another one of their platitudes.
250
« on: May 06, 2011, 13:05 »
I still don't see the icon that the admin who announced this program said would identify images in the P+ program. I see "Stock photo +" on the detail page and some have the new pricing, but others have the words but not the new prices.
Does anyone see it?
Without an identifier that shows the price, aren't we just setting things up for another round of complaints from buyers who feel ambushed by the price hike? They had images in their lightbox, carefully selected because they were all non-exclusive and now suddenly the price has doubled...?
The "Stock Photo +" text is about as obscure as it can get. If people aren't noticing the camera, they are certainly not going to see (or even know what) the '+' means. Another epic fail by iStock. Anyone want to add it to the other thread?
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 41
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
