|
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 - thesentinel
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14
226
« on: November 06, 2008, 11:27 »
hehehe - too funny:) I liked that very much.
On a serious note though if anyone took Istock to court for discrimination of non-exclusive photographers (like RM photogs did with Getty for ridiculous pricing), I'd definitely join.
I mean, how can you justify commercially that you have to push non-exclusive content down in search engine ranking? Does every Istock customer want only exclusive content??? What's wrong with adding "search exclusive images only" to the search options instead of making it mandatory?
And sorting by relevance by default?
Istock's recent policies defy all common sense. Sure, promote your exclusive content, encourage people to go exclusive by offering them higher payouts, but why they are pushishing non-exclusive contributors??? For earning them money? With 80% of profits going to them??
Somebody please do something about this insanity....
However much you , me or the office cat may not like whatever a current, and usually short lived, best match situation is, we are not privy to the long term strategy, and one think we can be sure of there will be layers of people involved in planning such a strategy given the ownership. In the meantime we have amusing threads such as this to enjoy.
227
« on: October 20, 2008, 10:35 »
I wish Istock realized how bad they are hurting themselves with their policies. By rejecting good stock images or severely limiting non-exclusive submissions they are losing millions of dollars. I have a backlog to submit to them of about 3000 images that would have earned THEM at least 10,000 a month. By allowing me to sumbit 30 a week (and I am a diamond member) and rejecting half of it they are robbing themselves of profit.
Most professional stock photographers can not afford being exclusive to any site, especially in microstock. Istock has a few exclusives that submit excellent images (like Lise Gagne), but I wonder if they realize that they would increase their income 10 times by being non-exclusive. In a way we are lucky that people like Lise are not competing with us on other agencies:) However, apart from these select few, most of Istock's exlusive content is not impressive at all - so by limiting good non-exclusive content they are purposefully and consistently decreasing the quality of their library....
The disambiguation system they got from Getty is totally unnecessary pain in the neck and not only useless in increasing search efficiency, it actually hurts it. I mean, look where this "wonderful" system got Getty itself and others that tried to adopt it (like Photoshelter that just went under).
And this is all too bad, providing that Istock was a pioneer of microstock industry, but looks like it is now is being strangled by their own corporate inefficiency, bureaucracy and shortsighted decisions.
Such over simplification and hyperbole followed by snide comments hardly sheds much light on the subject.
228
« on: October 18, 2008, 08:39 »
Re vectors - don't you think that if somebody is looking for vectors then they will tick vector box only? So it shouldn't matter if the vectors are being placed after photos, as long as the sorting within all the vectors works properly.
Let me guess. You're not a designer.
I don't get this blanket statement, does this mean that you think all designers think the same? Certainly where I work the general look of a project is decided before we search for images, an illustrative or photographic approach is one of the first things discussed with a client.
229
« on: September 24, 2008, 03:50 »
I don't know why the OP was surprised, as people are always complaining about istock moving the goalposts.
230
« on: September 05, 2008, 14:54 »
perhaps if we all write an email to fotolia they will get the message?
Looks like they took action. I emailed the thief and got this reply. Looks like more work has to be done by some image owners. ".......First of all, please let me apologize for what has happened, I feel stupid and angry with myself for letting myself be talked in to uploading images a friend of mine had, they originate from: http://www.fordesigner.com and appear to be free downloads..........." snip
231
« on: August 24, 2008, 04:11 »
In another thread chumley was used as an example of open-ness , sharing , someone to look up to .. I'm somewhat taken aback by the toys out of the pram twist shown in this thread.
232
« on: August 21, 2008, 11:03 »
I'm sure there are a lot of well kept secrets out there. I doubt I would let out everything I know, however there are those who actually believe in themselves enough to be able to discuss topics like this out in the open.
And you don't even share your identity!
233
« on: August 21, 2008, 07:33 »
Mentoring and training is giving someone the ability to do something, perpetuating craft and and in doing is also a form of self validation and thus a win win situation. But after having taught the skills to give them your business plan, gained from hard earned experience is a lose lose scenario. You've set up someone to undercut your living and they aren't going to learn from the school of hard knocks nor will they be as likely to come across their own unique insight and alternative strategies.
Just different life philosophies I suppose.
234
« on: August 21, 2008, 06:51 »
Exactly. We're not doing wedding photos 1000 miles from each other. We're all in direct competition.
I don't agree. Not about the competition, which is obvious, but about the need for threads like this: i believe that sharing information as much as possible is beneficial for everyone in the long run.
For example I could keep my "secrets" to myself when it comes to my job, but I like to write on books and talk at conferences about what I'm doing, because that's where I learnt the most in the past.
And you write these books for free?
235
« on: August 21, 2008, 06:12 »
Ultimately we are all in competition with each other so I don't really get the point of threads like this, and also doubt whether the guys above would be freely sharing their strategies.
I rue the day I shared some of my strategies with someone and was utterly ripped off.
Wow! So does this mean its OK for you to gather information for yourself from this thread but you're not going to give anything back? Isn't the whole point of a forum to share information for the benefit of all?
It is one thing to share information about scams, site machinations, rumours and paranoias, but sharing business plans is a whole other ball game.
236
« on: August 21, 2008, 03:42 »
I haven't monitored these things myself, but it looks like it might be a good idea. I don't have the same scale as top microstockers, but the learning experience would undoubtedly be valuable. From what I know of a few of the top contributors (Yuri, Andres, Ron) they're all intensely analytical and strategic about these sorts of details. It can't hurt to follow their examples and create some good habits early on.
Ultimately we are all in competition with each other so I don't really get the point of threads like this, and also doubt whether the guys above would be freely sharing their strategies. I rue the day I shared some of my strategies with someone and was utterly ripped off.
237
« on: August 18, 2008, 09:47 »
Ooh look alexa suddenly shot up again  What a load of nonsense.
238
« on: August 17, 2008, 15:21 »
The more users a site has the greater the uproar with any UI changes, everyone has their own little favourite methods, shortcuts, etc. There really needs to be a VERY compelling reason to make big changes.
And sometimes cool is not the best way to go. The funkiest UI hit the buffers even though it was on Rails.
239
« on: August 17, 2008, 01:38 »
This from quantcast, which is derived from their stats, does it accurately describe what you regard as your target microstock buyer?
Site Description
Istockphoto.com is a top 5,000 site that reaches over 1.3 million U.S. monthly people. The site is popular among a teen audience.The typical visitor visits cartoonstock.com, uses Photobucket, and reads celebritywonder.com.
240
« on: August 13, 2008, 17:34 »
August 2007, my first full month on iStock, I had 125 sales with a port of 60 photos. July 2008, I had 62 sales with a port of over 250 photos. I'm nearly up to 300 photos online, and sales are even slower this month than they started off at last month.
You need to find another category that sells. Three images, about one hundredth of your portfolio, account for 50% of your sales, someone else doing well with similar shots would seriously damage your sales.
241
« on: July 24, 2008, 10:07 »
There's at least one IStock employee here I know about, but it doesn't really matter. Any exclusive should tow the IStock line as their financial future is so closely tied up with IStock's success.
Any post by an IStock exclusive should be viewed with this in mind.
If you think that exclusives agree with every iStock action you really need to read more.
242
« on: June 18, 2008, 17:10 »
When my name comes up with a handful of my over 2000 images on google image search it's because they have been used and credited to me on a purchasers website.
243
« on: June 16, 2008, 02:03 »
Judging by the figures quoted by many who have been contributing to getty photodisc via istock I think for most it's little more than vanity publishing. Certainly the not worthy of the initial "Give up your day job" hype.
I'm curious where these "many" figures have been quoted. Can you post a link please? I've seen a lot of discussion in the hidden Getty forum on istock, but not much concrete anything posted in public. I'd love to see what you are referring to.
thanks!
For those that can access it look at the April Statements thread in the Getty Contributors forum on istock, which i fear I cannot quote here in case of consequences! Selling the sizzle and not the sausage.
244
« on: June 15, 2008, 00:22 »
Looks like your'e having lag time issues here too 
245
« on: June 14, 2008, 03:44 »
Judging by the figures quoted by many who have been contributing to getty photodisc via istock I think for most it's little more than vanity publishing. Certainly the not worthy of the initial "Give up your day job" hype.
246
« on: June 02, 2008, 07:32 »
I think it's bad wording, I think it's paying FOR credits that is not working. I managed a pay out an hour ago despite the rubric.
247
« on: May 27, 2008, 17:06 »
I think Alamy is a site for elderly people looking sad 
248
« on: May 25, 2008, 12:29 »
Look at it this way, does having Polska on the bell make it more saleable, or does having no writing on it make it more saleable?
249
« on: May 22, 2008, 04:45 »
And as for whatever name I do happen to choose you can be absolutely sure it'll be a little bit more intelligent sounding than yours.
Dustin the Eurovision Turkey might be a good one.
250
« on: May 21, 2008, 13:03 »
Note about Yuris income. He makes a lot. He spends a lot. He nets decent money. BUT, it he would retire right now, he would still have ~10,000 great images that will make him a LOT of money for next few decades.
So you can think of it like he is an investor. He cashes very few dividends but his worth is large (because his fortune is in his photos).
Decades?!!? Any lifestyle type shot by any photographer will look dated in a few years! Just look at some of the older macro stuff, less than ten years old and looking old fashioned.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
