|
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 - ShadySue
13826
« on: April 05, 2011, 06:51 »
wow, thanks for all the feedback. i can find the london eye email and post what they said. also, i see on lots of stock sites pix taken of and from london eye, but perhaps they are available as editorial photos only, as a previous poster mentioned. need to learn how to watermark the photos ... dont have photoshop or any photo enhancing software.
thanks again
iStock editorials are easy to spot - they have red (not black) text in a search.
13827
« on: April 05, 2011, 06:02 »
(Not a reply to any post above)
One thing that we (or at least I) keep forgetting is a certain proportion of sales comes from files already in lightboxes, so best match only has an effect on the others in the short term.
13828
« on: April 05, 2011, 05:05 »
I'll hold off voting for a while more. Yesterday had what are now high-average dls for me, though last year would have been low-average. Total mix from my second best seller to two new editorials, first sale of a file that was uploaded in July 2007 and three lowish sellers. HOWEVER, apart from one, none of these, if searched on by the most obvious keyword/s, would be in a search with (m)any Vetta/Agency files.
13830
« on: April 04, 2011, 17:09 »
see also this current thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312002&page=1
Your link takes me to the main forum page...did the thread get deleted?
I just clicked on the link in your post and it took me to the thread: Vetta Extended License. Ah, it's been moved from the Help forum to the Vetta forum, which non-exclusives can't access. Sorry. Someone posted that he had an Vetta Extended License / 150 credits and got $36 for it and was questioning if that was right. I have to say, these extended license %age cuts make a surprisingly huge difference. And presumably there must be a lot more discounted credits than before. Looking at this years EL amounts compared to those sold in previous years is really depressing. :-(
13831
« on: April 04, 2011, 16:26 »
Hi Stock Folks,
I just read a lot of strings (very negative) about iStock with one them stating that they paid someone 8c on a photo. I was thinking about applying for iStock but not sure anymore. Our min wage in Washington is over $8 per hour which sounds a lot higher than the $$$ or Cents that you would make at iStock. If you were a rookie, like myself, would you pass on iStock?
Thanks.
Tom
You need to make that decision for yourself. I'm pretty sure I've seen Getty sales lower than 8c (for a very tiny web size). The secret is to find pics that will sell multiple times to iStock's target market (whoever that is, I'm not seeing iStock ads these days whereas they used to be ubiquitous). If anyone knew what these were, they wouldn't tell you. It also helps if your multiple seller isn't one that can be easily copied inspirational. Then the mysterious best match algorhythm can help your files or kill them. at least it changes quite often. Sometimes. It'll certainly improve your pixel perfect technical ability, if nothing else.
13832
« on: April 04, 2011, 15:24 »
13833
« on: April 04, 2011, 15:04 »
That was interesting and gave more information than was on the other post on this subject.
Now we know that the guy was a model, not a fireman, at the time the photo was taken.
I had imagined a totally different scenario, around the lines of that the guy had been an actual fireman who had agreed to pose for a particular purpose, e.g. the firefighter's benevolent fund or something, the 'tog had said, "you'll need to sign this so that we can use it for the advert", then put up the MRd photo to an agency.
Now it seems more like the guy is embarrassed but has less of a case. He was a apparently a model at the time and presumably signed an all-purpose MR. I don't know why the issue about replacing a helmet with the photo - IS MRs and probably most others say that you can photoshop them almost as much as you like. Heck, there was even that bad taste German Getty ad of a bride with a felt-tipped moustache pointing out that that was perfectly OK.
So now I guess it all hinges on how big the disclaimer that it was 'posed by a model' actually is.
13834
« on: April 04, 2011, 06:49 »
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=320732&page=1
"Generally we're getting more and more satisfied with the overall sort... ...Again, we've been happy so far with the trends we're seeing since this went live. We saw room for improvement and have been working there and getting happier..."
So they totally changed the direction they'd been moveing in, rather than tweak slightly. Maybe it was the masseuse's turn to tweak the buttons.
13835
« on: April 04, 2011, 05:35 »
The law in the UK is pretty clear that anything can be shot and sold (as editorial) if shot from a public place. The paperazzis' charter. This is generally assumed to include the London Eye shot from the street, but no-one is rushing to be the test case.
So one might 'reasonably assume' that the converse is the case: that photos taken 'not from a public place' need permission. I have no idea if that's really the case.
13836
« on: April 04, 2011, 04:24 »
March was my first full month with IS and I am completely disappointed. I had heard such raving reviews during the past year and was really looking forward to joining the team.
Oh, the numbers; grand total of $13.94 for March for IS. Granted I have a limited port online at IS but I was still expecting better results.
I'm really surprised you heard 'raving reviews during the past year': you must have been limiting your sources. If you'd looked here, you'd have seen very little positive since early September at least. For a dose of realism, here are my figures. I'm totally 'average' in terms of sales: when istockcharts was running, I was around position 1880. Obviously everyone's stats are different according to what they shoot, how they shoot it and what the market wants. Week ending 6 April 2008 ( 30% from 1st April): 1013 files; 62 dls, 111.69 (EL $42 included)W/e 5th April 2009: 1605 files; 35 dls, "c$77?" W/e 4th April 2010: 2005 files: 42 dls, $114.20 W/e 3rd April 2011: 2261 files: 23 dls: $70.09 (included EL of $18.40) Still on 30% commission. (between April 2009 and now I added almost 1500 pics to Alamy. Only time will tell if that was worthwhile effort!)So if with a tiny port you made $13.94, you are doing significantly 'better than average'. FWIW, my first 'full month' on iStock was Jan 2007. I was on 20% and an XSM netted me c20c. I had 33 dls and $22.44 royalties. H*ll, that's sobering. I had exactly 40 images in my port at the end of Jan 2007, and had 33 dls. With 2258 at end of March 2011, I had 113 dls in March. (My downloads are falling consistently).
13837
« on: April 03, 2011, 16:34 »
There's only one sure fire way of beating the best match search fiasco and that's to shoot subject matter which isn't already saturated in the files. Not sure what that might be but.....
There are plenty of untapped subjects, but the real secret is finding ones that buyers want. I haven't cracked that one! Otherwise there's no point in having an iStockwhack. 
13838
« on: April 03, 2011, 13:02 »
All of the moves iStock has been doing lately has me thinking they are intentionally trying to thin the herd of less attractive contributors. They want iStockers that are committed to iStock and their entire philosophy and the rest can take a flying leap...
A lot of the agency suppliers aren't remotely 'committed' to iStock: they were 'brought in' - not working their way up - they can even sell their files RF off their own sites, which the really 'committed' exclusives can't. (Lots of committed contributors also have Agency files). They're just experimenting with what brings them the best 'profitability'.
13839
« on: April 03, 2011, 11:13 »
Lobo, the poor guy has just shut down a slider thread, saying its just turning into another best match complaints thread. Well what . did they expect? ??
breakfast in bed?
Nonono, He has ordered you to 'have a nice Sunday', though how he's expecting that with the best match the way it is beats me.
13840
« on: April 03, 2011, 10:03 »
I won't vote for a few days, had no sales yesterday and none so far today, but sales at weekends for me are random and I had 6 1 sale weekend days in March. I guess we'll know more during the week. I can't go much further down.
I have noticed that my second best selling file is below 200 in pics only for its top keyword!
13841
« on: April 03, 2011, 09:21 »
Remember, they don't care about how 'your' or 'my' files are doing. Only about their bottom line, as would be in any business.
Oh Sue we know that but believe me there will be a big F#####G dent if say 20-25 independant top cannisters did react to this. Do a search yourself and see the misery. I just did a seach "engineer and industry" know what came up? guy sitting in a wheelchair pretending to be an engineer and a hard-hat plonked on his head. Pugh!
Oh, I know. I'm not for a minute supporting what they've done. (did I really come over as if I was? Yikes!) I don't know what has happened with keywording recently. Some truly dreadfully keyworded files are getting in all the time nowadays. I'm sure Team Metadata are thoroughly bogged down with tne needs of editorial, so aren't getting to the Bulk Wikis far less the wikied files. Well, anyway, it will be interesting to read their spin on this latest best match, if they bother to spin it at all.
13842
« on: April 03, 2011, 09:05 »
RogerMexico's post on Friday in the long best match thread:
"I've been posting in here but it's getting lost in the shuffle so I think I'll make a final post and shut the thread.
We've been making minor adjustments to the sort mix ever since this went live. We will continue to do so. Generally we're getting more and more satisfied with the overall sort but we're still working with the mix of new content and different collections.
There isn't going to be a time when I stand up and say "Alright, this is now the best best match and it will stay exactly the same for the following span of time." Best match is something that we like to nudge and tweak a little bit here and a little bit there to continually optimize results. We will continue doing that. Again, we've been happy so far with the trends we're seeing since this went live. We saw room for improvement and have been working there and getting happier.
Finally, we are going to remove the keyword relevancy slider some time next week. At that point everyone will have the default which is in the middle."
Essentially, if they find that overall they are raking in more cash ('profitablity') from plugging V/A, that's what makes sense for them to do, and I guess testing it out on a Sunday isn't too bad an idea EXCEPT that presumably not many businesses with the Big Bucks do much buying on a Sunday (?)
Remember, they don't care about how 'your' or 'my' files are doing. Only about their bottom line, as would be in any business.
13843
« on: April 03, 2011, 08:58 »
Can someone please tell me where this slider is and how to adjust it. My sales are in the tank.
If you do a search, under the last row of thums there's a link 'display settings' and you can change your slider settings in there. But of course you can't change how any visitor to the site (potential buyer) has their slider set, and the default is centre. They should make the slider much more visible.
13844
« on: April 03, 2011, 08:38 »
I'm seeing far too many clusters of shots from the same artist on the same page, sometime half a dozen slightly different angles all in a group and quite a lot of pairs or triplets from the same shoot really high up the search. This severely limits variety. It's very apparent if you do a search on the word curry.
Where's your slider? I'm not really seeing that on 'curry', no matter where I put my slider. But they've also said there's a geographic bias, so maybe I'm not seeing (UK) what you're seeing.
13845
« on: April 03, 2011, 07:49 »
thanks so much for all the advice. i appreciate it.
one more question then .... i wrote to london eye and they said to send the photos for them to have a look. they said they werent looking at buying photos right now, but send them anyway. well, im concerned about sending them, because once i do this then they have them. i just want some money from them, and i would have very little idea of what price to negotiate, if london eye want them, if they made postcards could i get something for everyone they sell. or should i just put them on a stock website. once again, they arent great quality technically speaking, but super something else! should i send them to london eye (cant find question mark on this keyboard) or ...
whatdoyareckon
thanks 
ps these images are taken from the eye, and show some of it.
I can only advise on two points: If they are not top technical quality, they won't be accepted on most/any decent sites (i.e. those that are likely to generate sales) There are some that don't do any quality control: I only know one and it is pay for display and doesn't get many sales from the site unless either from their geographic specialty (not London) or from picture calls from editors. If you're scared about lE or anyone else stealing them, send the files lo-res and watermarked. Why not post the pics and see if anyone can advise? Lo-res/watermarked.
13847
« on: April 03, 2011, 07:18 »
Another Best Match change just happened and, wow, this is a big one.
It very obviously is pushing Vetta and Agency files. Another move to quickly boost revenue/profits?
I may need to do a different poll for this version because I have a feeling a lot of people are going to get hit hard on this one.
Yes, sorry, I posted the forum link in the Epic Fail thread, but it clearly would be at least as relevant here. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=320632&page=1First noticed it yesterday evening, BST, in a very specific search, but didn't realise it was all over.
13848
« on: April 03, 2011, 06:53 »
Woot! Someone was in the office over the weekend. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=320632&page=1(I noticed this without realising it last night UK time when a Vetta suddenly popped into one of my regular searches where I'd not noticed any Vettas before, and assumed it was a new file. Turned out it wasn't, but I should have realised it indicted a huge Vetta drive to the front. As I've said before, "They've heard of customers, but want no truck with them". This Vetta/Agency hike only shows with the slider in the middle (default). With the slider at the right, the V/A files are more mixed through, and there is a strong bias towards strong sellers. Aren't they talking about getting rid of the sliders? (Ludicrous IMO, but seems to be welcomed by other contributors) f so, buyers and sellers will be totally at the mercy of this sort of idiocy. They can always opt to sort by 'age', but then they're at the mercy of keywording, which I've noticed has been very slack on new acceptances for about a month. :-(
13849
« on: April 03, 2011, 06:45 »
March was my first full month with IS and I am completely disappointed. I had heard such raving reviews during the past year and was really looking forward to joining the team. I had my BME only because it was my first full month but I would not consider it worthy of a top tier agency. Dreamstime and Shutterstock both gave me very respectable earnings last month; Fotolia and IS should be dropped from the top tier.
Oh, the numbers; grand total of $13.94 for March for IS. Granted I have a limited port online at IS but I was still expecting better results.
At this rate, I will make diamond a couple hundred years after my death. My great great great grand children will be so proud of me; this is if my children have kids.
thats better than me,i remember my first sale of iS was at the time after 2 month when I was accepted by them 
I got my first sale of a file in my first submssion the day after it hit my port, a mighty 20c. Though I was underwhelmed at the 20c, some excited calculations of projections on the back of an envelope proved to be waaayy over-optimistic.  (I should have taken into account the pics on the same submission which had not sold the next day!)
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
