|
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 - SNP
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 54
126
« on: February 09, 2012, 18:43 »
Tnx girls for finding it so funny when Lisa labels me as a wanker 
Urrghh. I'd 'label' you as that from your posts alone __ it doesn't need any help from Lisa.
I have learned to love your honesty...particularly when it isn't directed at me ;-)
127
« on: February 09, 2012, 18:40 »
Hehehe. Mad PS skills too Suljo
are you being sarcastic? that is about as bad a PS job as it gets...well actually, there are far worse..but it's not good
Oh thanks for pointing that out, Stacy.
You win the Captain Obvious award for the day.
it's Stacey with an 'e'...and since when is pointing out the obvious a crime around here? Proartwork: Beavis and Butthead being for drug users....you must be kidding. I love Beavis and Butthead. I don't do drugs. hhhh hh huh.....b*nghole....;-) hope you see the humour in that, it is meant to be cute, not offensive...lol
128
« on: February 09, 2012, 13:31 »
Hehehe. Mad PS skills too Suljo
are you being sarcastic? that is about as bad a PS job as it gets...well actually, there are far worse..but it's not good
129
« on: February 09, 2012, 01:53 »
I liked the post. I think it's fair to say any blog/post/article/essay must oversimplify its subject....since no industry or issue can truly be encapsulated in 500 words or less. I agree with much of the sentiment behind it. I think the attitude he's talking about is using "change" as a scapegoat for not competing well.
that being said, what I think the article forgets to mention is that just because things change doesn't mean that we have to passively migrate through change. change is a living thing, and it is affected by those variables propelling it and those variables reacting to it. I think he misses that.
his photography is beautiful. can't argue with his success.
130
« on: February 08, 2012, 12:21 »
So how is February going for everyone? Excellent sales in January are continuing into February in my case. I have noticed its mainly new files that are selling.
Certainly it could be better, but not bad.
Sales are below average overall here. some days are fine, then others are terrible. the files selling are a very weird mix, lots of old with first downloads. they're clearly fumbling around with the collections.
131
« on: February 07, 2012, 21:37 »
It almost feels like gettin a lap dance from Beyonce 
Wow, you type really well for only using one hand....
Lisa - this comment of yours had me in stitches....good one
132
« on: January 27, 2012, 19:52 »
my sales are half what a normal day would be. maybe a little less than half. the whole week has been up and down.
133
« on: January 27, 2012, 17:18 »
whatever they have done, it has killed my sales
134
« on: January 19, 2012, 15:59 »
I think we can all agree that JJ and Kelly leaving does not bode well for any iStock exclusive. I don't know about the rest of you exclusives, but holy sh*t...what now?
Erm ... that's a really tricky one ... let me think about it for a nano-second or two and see if I can come up with any solutions.
LOL... you two should just go and get married! 
I think my husband would have an issue with that, but I've learned to appreciate gostwyck's humour over the years.
135
« on: January 19, 2012, 15:54 »
JJRD lay off is really bad news. Istockphoto owes much to him. Worst of all: JJRD is a photographer and an artist; I won't be surprised if his replacement heading the content department is a marketing specialist, a seller. It has happened often lately in the whole culture industry and when, with time, these kind of changess backfire often is too late to ammend it.
this is true, unfortunately. but I think we're about to see iStock get swallowed up by the Getty machine. the question is whether to go with the flow or walk the plank and hope the sharks are friendly
136
« on: January 19, 2012, 15:46 »
I'd like to say that having met them both last year, JJ and Kelly are two of the nicest people I have met in my life. very sincere, to the point that it sometimes came across poorly when communicating to contributors. on a business note, this is a frightening day for exclusives in particular. on a personal note, I will miss them both and their involvement. even when I didn't agree with it, I knew they meant what they said.
137
« on: January 19, 2012, 15:43 »
I think we can all agree that JJ and Kelly leaving does not bode well for any iStock exclusive. I don't know about the rest of you exclusives, but holy sh*t...what now?
138
« on: January 18, 2012, 23:44 »
iStock offers a brand, an exclusive product, and higher prices for a (generally) better standard of image. at least that is what they used to do, very well.
those waiting gleefully for their demise should be very careful what they wish for. the impact on prices and commission structures in microstock on the whole could be huge if something were to go down with iStock. again, the best outcome would be a visible return to contributor relations. a brave and bold Jerry Maguire move---doing the right thing and leading the way, even if it means a short-term hit to the bottomline that increases longevity and their position as a leader that offers exclusive content unavailable elsewhere. and the way to build that exclusive content is to make contributors happy. sweeten the deal for us and demand exclusivity. win-win.
139
« on: January 18, 2012, 18:10 »
You should care should one major agency collapse. It would have a huge impact in the industry, and it leaves contributors at the mercy of fewer major agencies. The best outcome would be a return to cultivating strong community relations with contributors.
140
« on: January 18, 2012, 16:19 »
I have to agree with you, those waving the pom poms for ANY agency are asking to be screwed.
As mentioned, IS was felt to be more of a partnership at the time. We were working together, or at least it felt like we were working successfully towards a common goal.
this is what I was talking about, although I am reluctant to comment in regards to the pom pom baloney. give me a break. we all participate in the community because of an emotional connection to our peers, as Sean says, the partnership towards a common goal. our respective objectives seem to be at odds these days, and yes, that makes me sad. as for moderation in the facebook group. I suppose moderation is the incorrect word to use. I guess it just doesn't feel like an entirely free forum for discussion anymore than iStock does these days.
141
« on: January 18, 2012, 12:16 »
Well, I posted condolences to the staffmembers who lost their job on their Facebook wall and they were gone instantly, so someone is at home in the social media department.
I have to say that I have participated very little in the FB iStock group, because it creeps me out that they are controlling the flow on information on Facebook. Facebook is a means for me to connect with my stock photo peers without moderation, and now it's basically moderated. I have little interest in participating in that. obviously contributors are not valued, despite assertions that we are valued. you can only talk out of both sides of your mouth for so long before people get into self-protection mode. no matter what 'expertise' Getty has brought to the table, they've continued to ignore the foundation for the success of iStockphoto-its contributors. all it will take is another hero agency to swoop in and steal us all. Shutterstock, bump up your royalties and develop a strong PAYG model and you won't have much arm twisting to do. makes me sad. I have truly loved iStockphoto as it was.
142
« on: January 18, 2012, 11:38 »
Its just my guess, but I really think this points towards the beginning of iStock being absorbed into Getty (rather than operating as an independent site) as many other collections have. With that done, H+F can easily put Getty back on the market for resale. That's bound to happen sooner or later, and a streamlined Getty might be more easily sold.
I fear some version of this is what is happening. I also think it is in poor taste that they haven't made some comment, however vague it might have to be, to address contributor concerns around these layoffs. it looks like Tyler Hellard was their social media guy. he posts Sept 2011 as his leave date from iStock on his website, and he started tweeting freely about things this week. makes me wonder if they were bound by some sort of gag agreement for a couple of months. conjecture aside, it's such bad business they have kept contributors, seemingly intentionally, in the dark. particularly exclusives. I don't really care if it is Getty, iStock, H&F anymore. as far as I'm concerned, it's all the same selfish and stymied machine these days.
143
« on: January 18, 2012, 00:34 »
fabulous. nothing breeds confidence like layoffs.....happy 2012
ETA: saw someone already posted the tweet by Tyler Hellard. guess we wait and see what's in store. sigh
144
« on: January 17, 2012, 12:39 »
My BME by miles (dls and $$) is still Nov 2008 (sic)
well, FWIW my two BME for both downloads and dollars were in 2011....but sales so far in January are strange. I seem to be getting almost my usual number, but they include lots of old, buried files. I guess a sale is a sale, but I prefer to see newer stuff selling consistently.
145
« on: January 16, 2012, 13:03 »
ugh - what is with sales (or the lack of)....?! awful start to the new year
146
« on: January 15, 2012, 19:27 »
honestly, whatever criteria they use to inspect, whatever number of queues they have--to suggest they're using inspection as a means of retaliation is still absurd
147
« on: January 15, 2012, 17:28 »
^ I think it would it's human nature to make inspection decisions with some bias--whether it's positive or negative--on a subconscious level. where I think it gets silly is suggesting it is part of their typical, management-sanctioned workflow....
148
« on: January 15, 2012, 16:08 »
from my observation Vetta seems better quality than alot of the Agency stuff.
You win the satisfaction of being the most eagle-eyed Vetta scout on MSG. And you're right, Vetta still beats Agency, since a lot of that stuff wouldn't even pass inspection for the main collection. Yet another issue that I'm sure drives customers nuts.
With all respect, I think that if an independent had submitted those files they would all have been rejected except for the pano. That doesn't mean they are bad photos, it just means that different requirements seem to apply to indes and exclusives.
Come on, that's just silly. Look at the latest accepted photos.
agree. can't believe that some contributors here think that they're being singled out. as though iStock has nothing better to do than petty retaliation against independents. really is silly
149
« on: January 12, 2012, 12:07 »
Alamy is well known for their huge collection of oddball editorial images and if the there is a collection that is diametrically opposed to micro images it is these. I've sold some weird images but yesterday takes the cake, I made a sale for $230.41 for a doggie bag dispensing box. If I asked any of you esteemed pundits what you thought of this image, even the politest of you would have laughed me off the stage.
lol. funny post. congrats on the sale. I've had a few of these lately of some of my worst uploads.....there's no accounting for taste I guess
150
« on: January 12, 2012, 12:00 »
actually, these days it feels like you're more of a pariah if you remain exclusive
Speaking only for myself, I don't think of exclusives as pariahs...I just don't understand why anyone would choose to remain exclusive when so many bad things keep happening at IS.
Money. And if the money well dries up then a lot of exclusives may not have any choice but to go find other sources of income.
Right. Some of us still do well there. If (when?) things take a noticeable downward turn, I'll consider dropping the crown.
exactly.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 54
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
