|
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 - Shelma1
2601
« on: March 04, 2014, 18:05 »
Treat your contributors fairly and they won't feel the need guerilla tweet you.
2602
« on: March 04, 2014, 17:46 »
I don't know about multiple cameras - when I was watching, there wasn't anyone else in that area onscreen, and I don't see any other cameras in the rear view. People never know where to look with camera phones. Do you look at yourself on the screen, look at the button, where's the camera hole?
There had to be at least one more camera to take a picture of them taking the selfie. Yes?
2603
« on: March 04, 2014, 17:07 »
You (Ellen) are paid by Samsung to promote the Galaxy, and Samsung pays big bucks to be a sponsor of the Oscars and for product placement on the show. Look at the photo of them taking a selfie. Look at the selfie that was tweeted. Look where everyone's eyes are looking in both shots...they had multiple photographers and cameras set up for the shot. Whether all the cameras were Galaxies I don't know. But this was a well-planned marketing effort. And the best shot of many was the one tweeted.
Also, note the nicely lit highlights on the hair of several of the actors. Very purposely lit, multiple angles, multiple cameras...
2604
« on: March 04, 2014, 12:31 »
I'm guessing Samsung had an agreement that would give them copyright to the photo.
Good point! This is Hollywood. Everything is fake. Might not have been as spontaneous as it appeared. Could have been a complete setup suggested by Samsung.
Yes, it was. This was a paid Samsung promotion, followed up the next day by a plug and giveaway on the Ellen show. I'd be willing to bet a photographer or DP snapped the actual photo that was tweeted...doubtful that they would have gotten everyone in and the photo relatively straight if it was a real "selfie."
2605
« on: March 04, 2014, 11:07 »
I'm guessing Samsung had an agreement that would give them copyright to the photo.
2606
« on: March 04, 2014, 11:04 »
"iStock
Hi everyone, were currently experiencing a website issue and appreciate your patience during this time."
-posted on Facebook
2607
« on: March 04, 2014, 10:21 »
If the site was up, you could go to the image page and look at the top left, I think, for the link to manage the image. But an error occurred while processing your request.
2608
« on: March 04, 2014, 10:15 »
Site's down. Or is it just me?
2609
« on: March 03, 2014, 10:22 »
My earnings per DL have been going steadily upward at SS and steadily downward at iS, until recently SS surpassed iS in the amount I earn per DL. If SS went only to 25 subs, my earnings there would be cut by more than 50%. I only submit to those two, and SS makes up 75% of my stock earnings. So that would mean about a 40% drop in overall earnings for me.  I guess then I'd start submitting to more sites and working harder on my own site.
2610
« on: March 03, 2014, 06:57 »
I guess the real question is should comps be considered a use? You technically are using them to sell something to a client and make money. Is it really any different than making a Powerpoint presentation. At the end of the day, I'm sure nothing will change because they are used to getting comps for free, but it seems like they probably should be charged.
It's not even "technical" - these people are making money off of our photos even if they end up not being in the final product. They're used for ideas, as sales tools, maybe even as models to be copied. They allow a project to be approved and work to begin. And the agencies make money too, ina sense, because they tell customers that this wonderful free comp service comes as part of a subscription.
We only get paid for a "sale", and the agency defines what constitues a "sale", and for any other uses, we get nothing.
It's just another way agencies have learned to profit from our work without paying royalties.
In the olden days, before stock, agencies would have an illustrator (called a comp artist) draw up the ideas, and then the art director would look over photographer/illustrator portfolios and present the portfolios to the client for approval. (This still happens today, to a lesser extent.) Every so often there'd be a portfolio review at the agency, and all the art directors would head to the conference room to look over the portfolios, which were large books or boxes with mounted photos in them. Back then you had to have a rep to get your work seen, and it was tough to get a rep. This free comp thing is simply the digital version of that. Only now, many thousands of photographers and illustrators who would never have stood a chance back then can have their work seen and presented to major clients. Reps and comp artists have suffered as a result, but many photographers and illustrators have benefitted from it.
2611
« on: March 02, 2014, 23:25 »
Scary to contemplate, but with Shutterstock offering comp images to ad agencies and their new partnership with the Art Director's Club in New York, I foresee things moving in the opposite direction...direct competition with Getty, resulting in more extended licenses to larger clients and gradually increasing average earnings per download.
2612
« on: February 27, 2014, 14:27 »
2613
« on: February 27, 2014, 13:53 »
Actually, a couple of photographers are doing well too.
It aint me, promise.  Doubled my portfolio but not one sale since Dec 18, 2013. My site dropped 400,000 places on Alexa. Something happened and killed my sales. And I cant stop the free fall.
I think it has already been established that a few people are doing "well". That is a relative term. It would only take 5 sales in the past year to be doing well, as compared with the majority of those networked.
It would have been so useful to get some sort of stats from those who are/were doing well, anonymously of course, such as x amount of images, social media plan, how many sites interlinked, etc etc.
Nobody wanted to share that kind pf data with everyone in the network tho.
I think i just made some constructive criticisms about SY. But watch how many minuses i get. Yeah, that cult. 
I've shared every sale. I've also followed several people's advice, which may have helped. They didn't have to share their advice...after all, at the end of the day, we're competitors. Helping me might hurt an illustrator who was willing to share his advice. And aren't you the one who insisted you were only interested in your own site and helping yourself? How about you share here how many sales you've had and all the details about how you achieved them. Hold on, let me make some popcorn. There are 174 sites, yet your post got only 4 minuses. Cult? Huh?
2614
« on: February 27, 2014, 12:29 »
Isnt there a bit of witchhunting going on here and doesnt it smell of cult?
Sym had problems right from the start, one of them was the lack of self critique, very obvious now.
Not to mention a few others, that I wont mention now, but did in the past.
Now prove the cult thing true and give me some minuses, since I speak against the true belief.
I don't get the cult thing. I'm just trying to make some money and trying something new. Maybe, I didn't get my robe, sneakers and Kool-Aid when I opened my site.
Good luck with the making money thing, tho illustrators seem to have a leg up, so you will probably do well.
Actually, a couple of photographers are doing well too.
2615
« on: February 27, 2014, 12:18 »
I don't get the cult thing either. I think we're a bunch of people who are just tired of being a bit unappreciated by some of the microstock houses and are looking for an alternative way to earn income with our work. We're hoping that linking to each other gives us more visibility and gives buyers an alternate way to search more images than just those on our individual sites, which might help keep them coming back. We're helping each other navigate and boost SEO and Twitter and Facebook visibility.
It's a way to build a store with the added bonus of supportive people and more visibility.
2616
« on: February 27, 2014, 07:06 »
I posted they should give us our money...and they deleted it. Losers.
Strictly speaking, it was never 'our' money, as 'we' hadn't earned it; but they made the very serious mistake, and didn't spot it at the time (how come?) not the contributors.
But really strictly speaking they DO have some of "our money," since they're making smaller corrections in the contributors' favor, supposedly. So that means they've been underpaying us in some cases. Which cases? For how long? Beats me. No transparency whatsoever.
2617
« on: February 26, 2014, 16:57 »
From their last email:
So you know, we also have some transaction corrections that will result in additional amounts being added to contributors accounts. Clean-up requires some work, but that work is in progress. The amount is not highbut the point is that we are making progress and for those who were asking; yes, our review is producing adjustments and in the contributors favor.
I hate to say it, but this email actually makes me trust them less. There are other errors too? And come on, they found these errors on their own? Really? It had nothing to do with many contributors wondering aloud why their PP earnings dropped so drastically in November after such a fabulous October? Now I don't trust any of their PP calculations from the get go. Are we supposed to trust that a company that's made so many mistakes and is finding more mistakes won't make even more mistakes correcting the mistakes?
2618
« on: February 26, 2014, 15:29 »
I think if you sign up as a buyer you get the trend report. I get it too.
2619
« on: February 26, 2014, 12:20 »
Nope, those are your words. Seo is based on links to and from sites. The more links, the more advantages. A few in SY have a ton more links than most. No where in there did i use the words you are saying. That is you and your buds doing the name calling.
You can call something a Ponzi scheme without actually using the words "Ponzi scheme." "One only has to look at the massive amount of links the top few people have to your site in Webmaster Tools to see what is going on...It sounds an awful lot like just another internet scheme...get a whole bunch of people to do your selling for you so you can live off their backs." That's a pretty clear description of a Ponzi scheme, IMO. Your words.
2620
« on: February 25, 2014, 19:45 »
We're quickly closing in on 250,000 images!
2621
« on: February 25, 2014, 10:27 »
I wonder how much Kelvin knows, but isn't letting on, or isn't being allowed to share.
Kelvin always seems straightforward. So I doubt he would step into a conversation if he had something to withhold. My guess is that closing photos.com is mostly to do with brand consolidation. Though the well reported EU trademark ruling perhaps did not help either. Thinkstock has always been the stronger brand.
I cannot understand why people want this to be anything more than a mistake. I agree with those saying that the accounting should be better. Perhaps consolidating the brands will pave the way for better accounting and reporting.
I certainly don't want it to be anything more than a mistake. The problem is that I simply don't trust them any more. They can't get their website operating properly though other stock agencies are able to do so, they can't get their accounting straightened out, and they're the only place I've heard of that's clawed back earnings due to credit card fraud and "irregularities." Not to mention the "irregularities" that were only admitted a few months ago because so many contributors reported suspiciously low earnings on exactly the same days. They certainly didn't notice that themselves. Overall it just seems like they're either incompetent or worse. More detail and transparency about what this latest mistake was, how it happened, and how the numbers were crunched to fix it would sure be nice.
2622
« on: February 25, 2014, 09:36 »
Hey gang, I've start a Facebook group for Symbiostockers to communicate with one another. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1413060825613141/And we still have Twitter, which is going along swimmingly. People are re-tweeting like crazy. I've kept my site very simple, which seems to be working fine, and sales are picking up for me. In fact, I've had people get in touch to buy extended licenses and for custom work, which aren't even available on my site. And one microstock house has emailed to say they'd like to represent me.
2623
« on: February 24, 2014, 18:09 »
Almost $800 for me. #^$%$&#*&^#%.
2624
« on: February 24, 2014, 15:30 »
The practice goes back forever. I used to buy stock occasionally from stock agencies and they would send me a whack of transparencies. We paid for what we used (and returned the transparencies). It's the way the business operates and to not allow ad agencies to download comps would be counter productive.
yes this practice does go back forever, but way back when your agency actually had people that worked with people, not some computer dealing with another computer and there were controls in place more or less. i think this practice is bad news. if i can give my clients a very low res image for layouts then so can SS. why not give them an image for layout purposes at 72dpi and 600 X 400 or tops 1200 X 800 saved at 50%, it's enough for layout and can't be used and if they want the image then they have to pay for it. lets not forget this practice way back when was managed much more so than today, and there is a prevention that seems SS is not applying.
this sounds like a total free for all if you ask me, absolutely no way to manage this free layout package.
I understand that when these 'special license' deals take place, with the bigger clients, then you do get "people working with people". That's partly why the prices are much higher, for the service the client receives.
True. The art buyer gets on the phone with a rep and negotiates terms.
2625
« on: February 24, 2014, 15:28 »
The practice goes back forever. I used to buy stock occasionally from stock agencies and they would send me a whack of transparencies. We paid for what we used (and returned the transparencies). It's the way the business operates and to not allow ad agencies to download comps would be counter productive.
yes this practice does go back forever, but way back when your agency actually had people that worked with people, not some computer dealing with another computer and there were controls in place more or less. i think this practice is bad news. if i can give my clients a very low res image for layouts then so can SS. why not give them an image for layout purposes at 72dpi and 600 X 400 or tops 1200 X 800 saved at 50%, it's enough for layout and can't be used and if they want the image then they have to pay for it. lets not forget this practice way back when was managed much more so than today, and there is a prevention that seems SS is not applying.
this sounds like a total free for all if you ask me, absolutely no way to manage this free layout package.
Ad agencies have been using the Internet to search for/download for comps/etc. for years. Really, it's only new to Shutterstock. Anyone with images on Getty has had this option with their images for quite a while. They only make this available to large, reputable companies. For example, when I worked at Young & Rubicam, art directors had access to these images, but when I worked at smaller shops with fewer than 100 people they did not. why can't they use smaller images? The question is: why would they, when they can get large images from Getty? all this does is put Shutterstock (and our images) on the same playing field.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
