|
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
14301
« on: January 20, 2011, 06:13 »
I may change my name from PaulieWalnuts to Prophet
Fotolia cuts commissions again
Yup, one screws us, all screw us.
14302
« on: January 19, 2011, 17:28 »
Looking at Alexa, the stats are much more even other than the holiday period, for all agencies. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/istockphoto.com#However, the siteanalytics stats would explain a lot. But you'd think if sales were falling off to that extent, they'd be really pushing to attract and keep new customers, not running around like headless chickens thinking up new schemes that don't work and raising prices.
14303
« on: January 19, 2011, 16:41 »
just asking, but have you contacted contributor relations to ask specifically and directly about the miniscule EL royalty? I'd start there and see what they say.
I haven't, but that's only because I did once before and was told it was 'old credits', and I've heard of people being told that, and also being told about huge bulk buyer discounts. Also, I guess if you bought a huge bundle at a 20% credit, because of iStock's cockups, the cost per credit could be very low.
14304
« on: January 19, 2011, 15:11 »
RM has hit his "we're looking into it" button.
14305
« on: January 19, 2011, 14:31 »
Whoops __ looks like things might be getting even worse for exclusives unfortunate enough to be in the PP. This has just been posted on the IS forum;
"Maybe its been announced and Ive missed it. The PP payout for december just started and I got .25c per file. I used to receive .32c
Is this a glitch or the royalties have changed?"
Maybe they've 're-aligned' PP royalties to reflect the amount paid under the RC system? If it turns out to be a glitch then what a surprising cooincidence that it happens to be in Getty's favour! Again.
It just never stops does it?
I thought PP sales didn't count towards RCs?
14306
« on: January 19, 2011, 14:29 »
They must have discovered that there was a customer who was buying 10,000 credit packets. It's not sustainable to have customers on the cheapest rate 
Also, I think its worth noting that the "from $0.95 per credit" now only applies to credit packages of 20,000. The 10,000 credit package price went up to $1/credit:
12 $1.54
26 $1.52
50 $1.50
120 $1.46
300 $1.40 to $1.43 (+2.1%)
600 $1.33
1000 $1.20 to $1.25 (+4.2%)
2000 $1.10 to $1.13 (+2.7%)
5000 $1.00 to $1.05 (+5%)
10000 $0.95 to $1.00 (+5.3%)
20000 NEW at $0.95 (buy twice as much to get the same discount)
I had two ELs last week where the credits must have been around 60c.
14307
« on: January 19, 2011, 13:17 »
"cruft" ? What does that mean?
(I thought that was a single dog show..)
Here's the definition.
Oooooh. Something else I didn't know. 
14308
« on: January 19, 2011, 12:46 »
"cruft" ? What does that mean?
(I thought that was a single dog show..)
As a famous typo queen, I'm assuming it's supposed to be 'crud'.
14310
« on: January 19, 2011, 09:05 »
Another disgruntled customer here: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291522&page=1Though to be fair, this morning Firefox is showing up the site and the search just fine from here. This morning (GMT) I uploaded a pic and after I'd done the keywording and categories and hit the final button, I got a big error, but the pic went up with all its information intact anyway.
14311
« on: January 19, 2011, 07:18 »
Found: Lost Pictures of New York Blizzard
assuming this isn't a fake... it's a fun project. I hope the film finds it's owners.
Oh, I really enjoyed watching that. Thanks for sharing! I've been having a massive clean out this week and have put out many used and part used films. Now I wonder what was on them!
14312
« on: January 19, 2011, 07:10 »
Thanks so much Sue, but yet what? Can or can't resubmit previously rejected photos with "do not resubmit"?
And there has not been any discussion at all about the issue of Vetta Editorial anywhere from the admins?
Yes you can resubmit. I couldn't possibly say what admins have been discussing, not having access to their (assumed) forum. I don't think they've appointed any Editorial specific admins, at least not that's been announced to the community. E.g. paulywood and bortonia are the hapless admins 'in charge of' the Logos-in-Limbo programme.
14313
« on: January 19, 2011, 06:48 »
My account jumped about $6 and I now have no 0% sales (I had 3), so maybe this one has been fixed.
14314
« on: January 19, 2011, 05:06 »
I am just curious if anyone has seen anything from the admins in regards to editorial on the following:
1 - Whether it will be permissible or not to submit photos as editorial that were previously rejected with a "do not resubmit" from the inspector and that were rejected on the basis on either model release, trademark, or location release?
2 - Also, will there be an Editorial Vetta category?
Cheers...
1. Yes 2. ? I don't think they're well down the editorial route yet. They don't even seem to have appointed a lead Editorial inspector/moderator. Most of what we see in the Editorial forum is peer speculation.
14315
« on: January 18, 2011, 21:07 »
It's working, as well as it ever does, search and forums, and has been all evening. Maybe you just caught a 'blip'. Uploads are disallowed right now, but we were given notice of that. OTOH, a contributor mentioned not being about to get into her own port about 20 mins ago: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293752&page=1I can see her port now.
14316
« on: January 18, 2011, 19:55 »
Back to the OP's question. The PP is rubbish and I'd recommend you avoid it at all costs. You will come to regret it if you participate. It started off really badly and it is now descending into farce.
Unfortunately, it's not only the PP which is becoming more and more farcical. 
14317
« on: January 18, 2011, 18:13 »
Plus they told us that the PP subs would be a 'different market' then directly targetted their biggest buyers with adverts for the cut price program.
14318
« on: January 18, 2011, 14:23 »
*sigh* Must be a candidate for the Epic Fail list? 
It was up there before this thread began.
14319
« on: January 18, 2011, 13:19 »
14320
« on: January 18, 2011, 10:14 »
And yesterday, the slated date for Vetta/Agency images going live on Getty, only 40 of the entire bunch actually made it over.
I actually was naive enough to think that one was going to work!
Oh, how does one see if they made it to Getty?
I see the column and my shots are there... How would I know if there are really actually on the Getty site?
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/Search/Search.aspx?p=images&family=creative&contractUrl=1&b=VTA
14321
« on: January 18, 2011, 10:12 »
Only if the mcdonalds is property released-this is editorial lite afterall!
Oh, whoops, you're right; I forgot!
14322
« on: January 18, 2011, 09:40 »
well there many different possibilities.
Socks isolated on white
socks isolated on black
socks with headphones
socks with goldfish jumping into them
hey I'd better stop letting out all my ideas.
Socks shaking hands
Socks alone eating salad
Socks typing on a laptop
Socks wearing stethoscopes
Socks looking at the open dryer door with looks of horror on their faces
And very soon, designer socks drinking Coke in a McDonalds franchise.
14323
« on: January 18, 2011, 07:35 »
And yesterday, the slated date for Vetta/Agency images going live on Getty, only 40 of the entire bunch actually made it over.
I actually was naive enough to think that one was going to work!
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
