|
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 - briciola
26
« on: January 19, 2012, 21:11 »
what a pathetic message. "The glitch monsters are at work down in the dark internety room, but they sent a note up that said: Dear You, Me fix broken thing. Sorry for trouble. Love, Monsters" Oh my god, is the dev team 12?
27
« on: January 19, 2012, 19:27 »
And the news keeps on getting better and better!
I'm sorry, I really don't feel much for either of them (Kelly or JJ).
I remember, not so long ago, both continuously singing somewhat emotional praises to Getty and Getty employees - how intelligent they are, how wonderful it is to be working with them and what a blessing to be part of such a great company.
They might not feel the same today, but it's too late. The harm has already been done and there's no going back.
Kelly needs to spend more time with his family. Right.
I agree with Jsnover.
Whatever you do, Kelly, cooking classes or ballroom dance, please stay away from any decision making positions at SS or DT. Come to think of it, or any other agency too.
I like them, and my commissions, just as they are.
Meanwhile you go ahead and sink away IStock, sink away ...
From where I stand it's only what you deserve.
Got to agree, I couldn't care less that they're gone - one's nothing more than a spin doctor who speaks in riddles, the other a fool who was best kept out of the forums lest he put his foot in it again. Good riddance.
28
« on: January 19, 2012, 05:27 »
January sales are currently way above average - whatever settings are in play right now, I'm liking a lot!
Same here.
"Another pint of Kool-Aid for my two friends here please"
It's going to be a real shame for these two when they sober up in a few months time __ because Istock's significance as a major player is now measured in months not years. Only the most die-hard, swivel-eyed apostles of Istock will still be exclusive come 2013.
I'm completely at a loss why anyone has you on ignore - by far the most intuitive and often funniest comments on this site 
29
« on: January 17, 2012, 04:20 »
Sound advice Les - I guess the only thing that could go wrong is if the image is deactivated for you - (like I think guitars/French castles were in the past?) - saying that, who knows what'll be removed in months/years to come for some potential copyright issue
30
« on: January 13, 2012, 06:42 »
I've got a few things in niches with virtually no competition. There's not much demand for them but they sell from time to time and the buyer goes away satisfied that iStock had something to offer in the niche he searched for. I would have to pull my portfolio before the buyer would leave in frustration.
If I look at the 'more like this' for my last sale on IS I can see it's the only image returned for those specific search words, so if independents pull their ports (even small contributors like me) it would inevitably hurt IS - buyers looking for a specific image would be forced to go elsewhere. That's the read danger of pushing indie content out of sight - that we start to leave and take unique images with us.
31
« on: December 22, 2011, 10:30 »
"I was shocked a few years back when best match was so utterly dominated by Yuri.."
Well they fixed that! A search for business man shows page upon page upon page of exclusive files - so Yuri's shots are deemed of less interest to buyers than thousands of exclusive images, many of which have no sales??? They really need to rename if from best match to 'bolster exclusive sales'
What a joke
Perhaps their market surveying said that buyers are tired of seeing the same thing they see everywhere else. So they are giving the buyers what they asked for. Who knows?
yeah, that'll be it. Istock giving customers what they want 
32
« on: December 22, 2011, 09:45 »
"I was shocked a few years back when best match was so utterly dominated by Yuri.."
Well they fixed that! A search for business man shows page upon page upon page of exclusive files - so Yuri's shots are deemed of less interest to buyers than thousands of exclusive images, many of which have no sales??? They really need to rename if from best match to 'bolster exclusive sales'
What a joke
33
« on: December 22, 2011, 08:01 »
Changes that completely dislocate earnings should be something that agencies avoid for the sake of their suppliers and for their own reputation.
Completely agree, but in Istock's case, they long ago decided they don't care much for their reputation, and even less for their suppliers. 
True.
What amazes me is that not a word of this is being spoken on the IS forum (unless exclusives are laughing behind their hands on their own forum). Have we become so used to Istock's shenanigans that we can no longer be bothered?
There were a couple of posts earlier, independents flabbergasted at the new best match...but Kelvin deleted them. (I used to think he called it as he saw it...now he comes across every bit the tosser that lobo is)
34
« on: December 20, 2011, 19:31 »
N/a
35
« on: December 20, 2011, 05:01 »
Yep but at this rate I won't have nearly as many files up on SS as I do on IS because of the high number of rejections. The reviewer yesterday passed a lot. TOday's reviewer was the opposite. Will it be worth being on SS with much less files ? I don't know but it won't hurt to try.
I just resubmitted some rejections - for focus - I resized them down a bit, unsharp mask and they mostly got through (just to be clear, I don't think the focus was off, they were all accepted across IS,DT,etc.). For the lighting rejections try brightening them up a bit, bit of contrast with curves - put a note saying that you're resubmitting them. I've found you can push files a bit more in post for SS, whereas in IS you'd get an overfiltered rejection. Anyway, it's got to be worth a try resubmitting your favourites at least once, you've already done the work of keywording, etc. (On cars - I've driven (not mine!) a few ferrari,jaguar...but the Aston Martin Vantage took my breath away. How can anybody not love these cars?  )
36
« on: December 16, 2011, 14:54 »
Well, after a couple of days uploading and keywording I thought I would update on my progress. I have had 76 images rejected and 39 accepted. To me that's pretty bad going and at this rate I will be finding it hard to match the numbers I have in IS. Or, is this pretty normal, are they very picky once you are in ?
I initally found them easier than IS, now it's probably the other way round for me at least. What are the rejection reasons? If it's focus, I usually try a resubmit with a downsized image and a note to the inspector saying that I'm resubmitting. Sorry if this is stating the obvious, but it's probably worth uploading any IS rejections you think could sell too. I've had a few that didn't make the cut on IS but are on SS. Congrats anyway and I hope they start accepting more.
37
« on: December 14, 2011, 12:49 »
I sincerly doubt that anyone here is hoping that istock customers leave and lead to a drop in traffic.
Why? I'd be happy to see customers move from a site that pay a pittance % to somewhere fairer
38
« on: December 12, 2011, 21:31 »
JoAnn - what is your point? I apologize for missing the size of the portfolio on SS and DT...but you're just splitting hairs. My point is exactly the same. How can morphart give advice concerning lost IS income to SS gain-with JUST 17 files on iStock?
I certainly wish sodafish the best but I wouldn't expect income to be made up anytime soon.
Sorry we can't all be as amazing as you...oh, didn't you get excluded from some Getty inclusion because (as JJ said) you didn't work hard enough? Let he who cast the first stone...
39
« on: December 09, 2011, 19:18 »
And what's funnier is that CSA_Images entire portfolio is Vetta. Perhaps that's why it's so incredibly hard to get anything accepted as vetta these days.
all 5677 files are vetta. Man these shots must be SO much better than your average exclusive who ony manages to get a small percentage of their files into vetta Edited - when I say shots I mean illustrations or whatever - like this peach, must have taken a frickin age to do 
40
« on: December 07, 2011, 08:49 »
microsoft and apple aren't completely incompetent though...
41
« on: December 06, 2011, 11:31 »
Istock can be better or worse, they can pay more, less or the same percentage than sub-sites, where percentages have to be guessed but, at less, it has the ability to sell our files for fair prices, both for buyers and sellers, that are not near to nothing.For me, that's the best part. One good exemple, today, my three last sales add up to 26 dollars, and they doesn't include any Vetta or Agency and just one E+.
they may "sell our files for fair prices" but they sure as hell don't give independents a "fair" cut of the sale.
42
« on: December 06, 2011, 08:54 »
With the new announcement I tried to check the website just to verify my numbers and I can't even log in. Anyone else having this issue? It says I'm not authorized to see the earnings page.
I've had that - try control+F5 to force a refresh and it should prompt you for a captcha annoying thing to get in.
43
« on: December 05, 2011, 09:55 »
the rush passed me by 
44
« on: December 02, 2011, 20:37 »
... As more and more images are added to the site, it's only logical that contributors would see their earnings decrease through dilution of their portfolios and increased competition...
This may be true, I have seen several people say that lately, and I cannot recall anyone arguing against it. But there might be another side.
If I made picture frames and Wal-Mart offered to sell them, should I say, "I don't want to sell at Wal-Mart, they have too many products." Or if I want to sell my watch, should I decide not to sell it on ebay because ebay has too many watches for sale? Buyers tend to go where the selection is best.
Surely many of the SS PPD/non-subs sales these days are to buyers who are jumping ship from iStock, and to what ship are they likely to jump? The one with the most images? Hence our great increase in PPD sales at SS. Maybe the more images it offers, the better we will all do. Maybe there is no such thing as a downside to dilution.
(emphasis mine above in bold) In that case, everyone should advocate Alamy surely...more images than anyone, fair commission and charity donations too?
45
« on: December 02, 2011, 05:33 »
independents' sales fall to the point that all we get is PP sales - as we pull our ports exclusives are forced into the PP to make up the numbers.
Buyers move en masse to PP or SS and the whole messy crappy site that is IS is shut down (Hopefully SS close the door before that point)
46
« on: December 01, 2011, 04:19 »
From the iS forum (my emphasis):
Posted By dcdp:
JJRD - do the recent issues point towards significant changes being made in the backend of the site? Or are they just ongoing recent issues? There does seem to be a recent proliferation of problems for which the fixes are being put off for some reason. I'd hope that, in the long term, these would be beneficial to all, even if, in the short term, they are painful.
Additionally, the buyers have been offered a 15% discount on credits purchased because of this outage as a short term apology for their difficulties. I suspect this will be worn by the contributors who have not only suffered from an ongoing inability to manage their own portfolio, upload images, and maintain their portfolio, but now have been unable to sell anything because, in the case of exclusive contributors, their sole distributor is off line. What will iStock do to recompense contributors?
Posted by JJRD:
Let's focus on clients at this stage, come on - the site just came back.
Part of this massive technological overhaul is intended to facilitate everybody's experience with iStock - and it will.
So yeah, that's a big N.O. as far as I can tell.
Apparently just hearing words from JJRD is enough to instill confidence in some...what am I missing? The guy speaks in code and like KK before him puts a positive spin on their failings. Isn't this the same guy who "puts his ass on the line for contributors", as sales disappear, management actively push people to the PP, the site gets continually worse...why do these fools put such faith in this spin doctor???
47
« on: November 30, 2011, 05:32 »
FWIW - I went back and checked last month's numbers - I sold 3 times as many files on the PP as I did on IS, but IS still made nearly 5 times the revenue that PP did. (caveat - bronze, low volumes)
Are you exclusive or independent? And do you have video income included in iStock? As an independent, you would have to be averaging $4.50 to get five times the income from one third the sales and it's hard to see how anyone would do that just off still images (unless you got an EL, of course).
independent, photos only. No ELs, p+ sales at decent sizes seem to have brought the average up - like I say though, my numbers are so small it doesn't mean much - the month before I had 5 times more PP than IS sales, and the money was split about 50/50
48
« on: November 30, 2011, 05:14 »
FWIW - I went back and checked last month's numbers - I sold 3 times as many files on the PP as I did on IS, but IS still made nearly 5 times the revenue that PP did. (caveat - bronze, low volumes)
49
« on: November 29, 2011, 08:51 »
I also boycotted until I was forced in but the way istock are going, that might not be for long.
+1
50
« on: November 25, 2011, 09:19 »
I wonder how many buyers have moved to the PP sites? PP seems to be on the increase for me as IS drops - I wonder at what point independents will pull their ports as IS sales dwindle and PP increase? I.e. would it be worth leaving images on IS/PP if the only sales were coming through the PP? Food for thought...
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
