|
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 - goober
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11
151
« on: May 28, 2014, 22:40 »
I've had the same problem all week. I upload it goes to blank screen. I recall upload page again and the file is sitting in the edit cue. I open to edit the file and get no preview so I just hope I'm putting in the right keywords. Click send and I get another blank screen. I recall upload page to start all over again.
I'm picturing a two staff sitting on wooden creates in a dark abandon warehouse working on the problem right now.
152
« on: May 28, 2014, 22:34 »
I'm dropping like a rock.
153
« on: May 22, 2014, 23:17 »
I've had no GI sales for the last two months. Did IS make another drastic change or has the database just had another mess up?
When you go into the GI sales pages there doesn't seem to be a way to sort them by last sold. When I inspected the first file in the list by default it sold at GI in May 13. Man this is so frustrating. Confidence = 0.
154
« on: May 22, 2014, 03:14 »
Carlyle seems to have deep pockets (35bill). I'm sure they will package up anything risky and sell it off to pension funds full of unsuspecting grannies. Surprise granny, you just got punked!
155
« on: May 14, 2014, 20:43 »
Getty has a revenue of around 800 million dollars a year. This includes everything, their microstock business, their macro business, their news business, rf and rm.
They also have around 2 billion dollars in debt, which they accumulated through being sold several times and owners paying themselves generous bonusses on a falling business or by letting the company finance it's own sale by taking on more debt.
2 billion in debt means they have to squeeze the goose without killing it.
156
« on: May 13, 2014, 20:14 »
I've been watching lots of documentaries on debt. In one doco on debt they discussed a British civil servant called John Cowperthwaite and how he is credited with transforming Hong Kong by lowering taxes and trimming the size and intervention of government. The documentary implied that China whose people were starving to death after many years of communism looked to Hong Kong's strategies and started to implement them as their system was breaking down.
It makes me wonder if istock was to feed more income back to the producers they might find more quality production happening. If they could streamline their overheads and running costs and just skim a little off the top the site could turn around. People produce when they get a return for their effort. If effort is not rewarded they stop producing. If they are getting a good return they will be more likely to refer people to IS.
If like most companies they have debt and a complex structure of owners to satisfy then trimming the overheads will be impossible.
157
« on: May 13, 2014, 19:54 »
Audi 5000 got taken out.
I think it's a cynical attempt to get existing contributors to email all their friends and colleagues in an attempt to drive traffic back to IS. It's not that they care about the exclusives. It's a marketing strategy. Like chickens in a pen we get excited when the farmer brings out a fresh bucket of scraps instead of just a handful of grain.
158
« on: May 13, 2014, 19:31 »
The contributors to IS have continued an old kind of stupid.
159
« on: April 10, 2014, 23:55 »
I'm highly suspicious that IS is limiting earnings. Why would this be a good idea? They get thousands of people continuing to produce new art instead of rewarding a few top tier full timers. Algorithms could consider port size, average wage in artists country, upload rates, selling rates, anything result they want to target. IS seems hungry for new images. Standards have been dramatically lowered which means they want MORE PRODUCERS. To stimulate production they share the earnings around. If I have a high day early in the week the next 2 to 3 days are much lower and my weekly earnings are usually within $100 range week to week.
160
« on: April 10, 2014, 23:35 »
My last HD1080 sale on IS was $18.62 USD for 20 secs.
161
« on: April 07, 2014, 07:44 »
I wasn't happy with my experience. $600 down the drain. The attitude seems to be - you're getting thousands of dollars worth of code for a few hundred dollars so BE GRATEFUL.
162
« on: March 04, 2014, 20:37 »
The end game here is a transfer from the developed world to the developing world. The future of micro stock is lower prices.
163
« on: March 04, 2014, 20:03 »
I love the part about not providing file information breakdown. It's a faith based system.
164
« on: February 20, 2014, 04:34 »
Another One Bites the Dust?
Considering that iStock is flooded with a new crap low quality content, looks like Getty will make a big trush from photos.com to host all this garbage.
Even crap deserves a chance. I've been making my living off it for several years.
165
« on: February 20, 2014, 04:29 »
They actually did this on purpose? There is no microstock site that doesn't show the thumbnail image of any upload during the keywording process. But Istock has such major site speed issues they need to take this drastic measure? Seems like there's some bigger fundamental flaw somewhere if they have to resort to less functionality to keep the site alive.
No, no, it is a wonderful feature. It's the greatest website feature the world has ever seen!
166
« on: February 20, 2014, 02:19 »
I came across the site while looking for other places to sell my stuff. Race to the bottom for sure.
167
« on: February 14, 2014, 07:54 »
Have to agree. Another annoying attempt to speed up the site. I often look at the image multiple times to think of keywords but now I have to flick between image viewer and site. Pain.
168
« on: January 28, 2014, 05:49 »
Yes. I have an extra big fat wad of cash in my account this morning and because of their opaque accounting system I have no idea if its from GI or refund for Jan royalty rate glitch. On the positive side, I'm glad to have it.
169
« on: January 24, 2014, 00:40 »
And the good news is that my grandfather, the royalty rate of 2013, has turned up and is making a welcomed improvement to the stats, although I'm still way down on last year.
170
« on: January 24, 2014, 00:26 »
This sounds like your on the titanic and we all know how that ended...
Yes. I'm a big bloated Leo, floating in the icy Atlantic.
171
« on: January 23, 2014, 21:15 »
I changed to Mac this year from being PC for ten years. The PC (XP) was great, so stable. The Mac had to be fixed twice. Motherboard both times costing Apple $800 in parts. Has been good since then but I'm going to have to shell out another $200 for an Apple care plan given the history of this machine so far.
Coming back to Mac after 10 years away was like working in honey for the first few weeks. I was so use to the speed of navigation the PC. I'm slowly getting the hang of the mac.
172
« on: January 23, 2014, 21:02 »
I'm going exclusive to the very end! Clinging to my piece of driftwood in the freezing ocean. Wiping saltwater from my eyes as the Captain and a few third world contributors float away into the darkness on a tiny lifeboat.
173
« on: January 21, 2014, 18:59 »
Yeah, I'm getting killed. Finally gonna drop the crown because there's no way I'll make LESS going indie.
Blamb and goober - Sorry to hear this news. But your RC rates are grandfathered from 2013 so you're royalty rate will not change so that's good. But yes, sales are a poor start for 2014 - I'm not sure what is going on and there is the royalty glitch (which they will fix). I would "sit and wait" for now and see what the next six months hold for us all. If you are committed to dropping the crown I would try this instead, form an independent business and as an artist, "sell" your images to the business for a dollar each under a "work for hire" contract. Then use the business to submit to other sites. By dropping the crown you're giving Getty images/istock a better royalty rate, so you're basically "rewarding" them your images. If I was going to leave Getty/istock I wouldn't leave my images there, they don't deserve them. Good luck guys regardless.
Is this what Yuri has done and is it legal? Surely you can't sell your existing images to the company for $1 and still sell them exclusively on iStock. It would have to be new images only. I've always tried to do the right thing by iStock as they are my primary source of income.
174
« on: January 21, 2014, 05:41 »
And when they get around to fixing the royalty rate problem I'll get an email saying we owed you $XXX but I'lll never know if it went into the account total because there's no proper accounting system in place showing line by line credits and debits.
175
« on: January 21, 2014, 05:38 »
No-one is supposed to drop a level
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357536&page=1
but it seems nobody told the programmers, and it isn't a priority to fix it:
Why is that in the Help forum rather than announcements? Like these:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358648&page=1
So when you click on the link "What are redeemed credits" on your stats page you get 2011 credit targets. To get the latest targets you have to go searching through the forums. That makes a lot of sense. To top it off the programers have stuffed up and the site is recording the wrong royalty rates. You can understand why I thought I had dropped to the next level.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
