|
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 - Risamay
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13
26
« on: January 19, 2012, 14:27 »
Yup. That often happens when roles are made redundant or are split up between other roles or employees. Makes sense as iStock is being further absorbed into Getty, officially.
27
« on: January 19, 2012, 14:21 »
I'm late! Thanks, chica. (: And can't see how to delete this thread.
28
« on: January 19, 2012, 14:16 »
September 2010:
if one day I do not believe in iStockphoto anymore, I will be out of here in a snap. Faster than a speeding bullet. - JJRD
Yep, that's the one I was thinking of.
Doesn't sound like it was a matter of his lack of faith. Sounds like he was asked/forced to leave. Downsizing, layoffs, etc.
29
« on: January 19, 2012, 14:13 »
30
« on: January 17, 2012, 21:20 »
Indeed: Raising prices WHILE cutting staff. The turds.
Ah, I think of all the fan boys and girls who held on for so long ...
Hopefully no one has any WooYay illusions anymore.
31
« on: January 16, 2012, 19:13 »
Its not all roses over here. I am looking into closing my studio and going back to working from home  Living rooms are overrated, my friends can sit in the kitchen...
But Ill try to produce and upload as much as I can for istock/getty/video this year and then we will see.
Sorry to hear. I wish you the best of luck. In other news, I see there's an uptick in refunds again, and more doubt about the accuracy of accounting and payouts over there. Good god! But WHEN, oh WHEN is this crackpot company going to be formally audited by a third-party that will take them to task and get our monies sorted? It is beyond clear that their accounting is flawed, at the very least, if not intentionally cooked.
32
« on: January 16, 2012, 17:33 »
the coolest thing is that they feel they dont need to give any response or announcement to exclusives..
As a business, we are constantly looking to optimize our pricing. This is an ongoing process so you will see prices change from time to time; sometimes up and sometimes down.
It's not much of a partnership anymore (though hasn't been for a good long while now), is it? Must be nice, running a business and not giving a hoot about consulting or answering to those (your employees, partners, suppliers) impacted by your decisions about said business. Unconscionable. Enjoy the good sales while you still have them, Cobalt. It ain't gonna last forever. That's the only certainty where good sales and iStock is concerned. Sadly (:
33
« on: January 16, 2012, 15:19 »
Istock must be getting desperate to hang on to their exclusives and/or make more money.
Perhaps that's why E+ prices just went up? When are they going to learn that gouging customers (i.e., driving business away) won't keep exclusives loyal. It only makes the problem worse (higher prices, lower sales, less money in exclusive AND non-exclusive pockets, as buyers go to cheaper pastures with work of equal quality).
34
« on: September 23, 2011, 17:24 »
Wow. This doesn't impact me as I have virtually nothing at Fotolia and no sales, but dang. So wrong, on so many levels! Can't believe this is their new policy.
35
« on: September 02, 2011, 12:38 »
I think Ink is right. I don't know if this has been stated, and just don't have the time to go thru and read all the rest of the posts, but from the language being used it would appear that the future Vision/direction that they are taking steps towards is to pick and choose images (subjectively) images that belong on lower paid sites within the Getty family.
It would be quite interesting to see how they are going to hand pick (would take an army) to say one image belongs in one place and another image belongs in another with lower value. I can understand the concept of doing such to filter out some junk or old images from searches to improve a buyers experience. I'm not sure how iStock benefits from mirroring images on all sites. If I were a buyer (and I am sometimes) I would be going to the lower paying sites to get some of those mirrored images rather than using iStock. This is what leads me to believe that there will be a new process (probably announced in Dec..I'm guessing) that will change the approval process to not only determine if it is accepted, but "where it is accepted to. It would seem this is completely the setup to treat each site, low, med, or higher dollar, as "collections" similiar to Agency or Vetta.
From a business standpoint, I do not see the mirroring as a benefit to anyone, but a preliminary step. And from much of the IS feedback or lack there of with some questions, I am beginning to see the larger picture.
I might be way off base here, but I think I'm pretty close. Source: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754&page=39
36
« on: August 31, 2011, 12:16 »
Frances Twitty rocks. Since I'm still banned by demand on iStock and don't care to ask Lobo to lift my self-imposed gag, I'll WooYay her page 31 post here. For anyone who's excited about a closer association with Getty, get a clue. Read France's post and you won't be doing cartwheels about the new iStock ASA. I've been trying to put my mind around all of this. I haven't been super involved lately here in the forums because of some personal issues (my husband was in a motorcycle accident this summer -- he's basically fine now, but recovery will take approx. a year -- that's why some of you haven't heard from me in awhile!)
Anyway, back in April 2011, I cancelled my contract with Getty and no longer upload images to them. It was for a variety of reasons -- their take it or leave it new contract, their distributional delusions indicating they had the 'right' to put my work anywhere they * well pleased, their copyright issues whereby contributors were NOT given credit for their work, their inconsistent royalties (as low as 4 cents on high quality work and my only Vetta sale through them that netted me a whopping $1), their low volumes which never made any sense when you considered how many 'partners' they distributed to which made me question whether or not all sales were accurately accounted for and whether or not we received appropriate payment (not easy to tell with the copyright issue), etc.
I opted to 'downstream' myself to only istock. Joining the PP at istock was never a good idea to me, so I was strictly in istock proper. Now, with this new ASA, I'm being upstreamed again!!! Back to all of Getty's problems. And some people think this is a good thing. How exactly is this a good thing?? Once in a blue moon you *might* get a decent sale. More often than not, revenues and volumes are disappointing. Just ask any Getty contributor.
I am not pleased about istock's new ASA. They are doing the SAME THING to contributors that Getty did -- mandating a contract that should be negotiated. Exclusives have lost control over their images (even though it is being said it is an upstreaming, I've seen the upstream and it ain't all that). Non-exclusives are REALLY being treated unfairly as well. Those of us long-termers with larger ports cannot/will not close our accounts as it is a MAJOR pain to do so and will result in at least a temporary lack of income, which most of us cannot afford. But over time, these decisions will wash through and the ramifications will be seen. This might just be the final nail in istock's coffin.
Some of you woo-yayers might want to jump back into the reality of the situation. Source (though who knows if Lobo will leave it live on IS): http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754&page=31
37
« on: August 31, 2011, 12:04 »
I will be staying. I am not at all happy about the heavy-handedness of this new ASA, but I have been expecting something like this for months. Can't afford to give up more than 1/3 of my income.
I'll be staying as well. I already had my content in the PP and honestly, iStock can do what it likes with my content at this point. Not because I love the company and have so much faith in its business decisions, on the contrary. I stopped giving a hoot about iStock a long time ago. I don't even get mad anymore. iStock's heyday was yesterday, or the day before that. Ancient history, at this point. I just shake my head and laugh at what a mess they continue to make for themselves. The choices they're making are poor at best and it will ultimately lead to their undoing, and I'm not willing to spend any time dismantling my portfolio there. I've seen a bit of a boost in recent weeks/months from the + program for independents, and that is a nice surprise. But like all other boosts past, I don't expect it to last worth a lick. What I won't be doing and haven't been doing is uploading new content to iStock. I'd considered submitting editorial there, but I don't think I will. And my new work sells so little there (in past experience) as the overall collection grows ever larger and my presence/portfolio grows ever more diluted, I feel like it'd be a wasted effort. So I'm focusing my photo mojo elsewhere, and even if I'm not currently raking it in, I'm exponentially happier. Which totally rocks. Blah, blah, blah. iStock. The best thing that came out of that experience for me, over and above the money and new-found skills or confidence in myself as a photographer, is the wealth of awesome souls I had the chance to connect with. A handful of whom I can't imagine now not knowing. iStock - You suck. iStockers - You rawk.
38
« on: August 29, 2011, 16:55 »
All of a sudden I feel sick.
I agreed to it, but to quote a friend who's similarly livid - "Seriously guys, I'm almost done."
39
« on: August 04, 2011, 19:56 »
Wow, he got a promotion ...
... is the wrong answer. He's basically been sacked. He's been moved sideways and downwards both in the corporate sense and also geographically.
He was the boss of a $1B-worth company with full responsibility for P&L ... until he screwed up and probably halved it's value (at best). Two years ago IS were comfortably the #1 microstock site. Nowadays that's just history. KT's going to be the VP, note VP, of a department without any responsibility for P&L. They've finally realised he can't be trusted with P&L and that will be the ultimate humiliation for him.
This was just explained to me by someone else. Clearly a demotion! As the unnamed source said to me, "VPs are a dime a dozen." And someone else noted, "It's like being a manager at McDonald's." I get it now. And WooYay! Glad they've shuffled him along, but I don't think it will matter a lick in terms of the way wind is blowing at HQ in terms of policy, sales, etc.
40
« on: August 04, 2011, 17:29 »
Do you think this is a prelude to forcing the reluctants to put part of their port on Thinkstock.
(Similar to the way governments work, as in "We tried voluntary compliance, and it hasn't worked, so now we must legislate").
IMO it's only a matter of time.
Indeed. Resistance is futile.
41
« on: August 04, 2011, 16:51 »
Adieu, Kelly. Though sounds like you'll still have plenty of say in the future of IS.
42
« on: July 13, 2011, 18:51 »
Update: I thought Sean's piece was really helpful and tweeted it to @ScottBourne (author of the blog post I referenced at the outset of this thread). His reply was as follows, and (as I'm new to Twitter) when I went to follow him (because seems he posts lots of interesting stuff) I found I couldn't. I think he banned me as a troll! Despite the fact that I *thought* I was being helpful, sharing insightful info. Gah. You try and be nice to people ... @Risamaymay doesn't in any way answer my concerns nor should it anyone who is a professional photog. The advice is bad misses the mark.
43
« on: July 13, 2011, 17:33 »
44
« on: July 06, 2011, 17:58 »
Yes, Warren. Facebook's terms/wording is similar. http://www.facebook.com/terms.phpAnd as to the Google terms, I think they're blanket. The link and quote I provided is to a general Google terms page. Nothing specific to Google+ ... actually!
45
« on: July 06, 2011, 16:30 »
Yes. It's very confusing. Not really sure what it means, or doesn't mean  If anyone reading has more of a clue than we do, I hope they'll post.
46
« on: July 06, 2011, 15:45 »
What do you guys think? http://photofocus.com/2011/07/06/google-plus-read-the-fine-print-before-you-sign-up/http://www.google.com/accounts/TOSBy submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services. You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.
47
« on: July 06, 2011, 15:42 »
Thanks, Ruby! I'll pass it along.
48
« on: July 05, 2011, 13:54 »
49
« on: July 04, 2011, 22:32 »
No worries if Elena's work isn't to your taste, Shank. If you know anyone to whose taste you think it may appeal, please pass on the link.
Thanks, Cas. I'm a huge fan of Elena's and I think this project is going to result in a really exciting and educational final cut. That's my feeling anyway, based on the bits she's released thus far.
50
« on: June 30, 2011, 14:36 »
Also note that the new summer "Woo-Yay" thread has a total of zero posts so far.
Seems the community there is * near dead. Glad for the friendship I made and where they are flourishing, elsewhere.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
