|
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
2751
« on: November 22, 2013, 15:31 »
Well, now it's very clear you work for iStock. Only their employees would be arrogant enough to put the onus of getting sales stats on their contributors and not on themselves. The site is poorly run, with continuous problems other sites either don't have or are capable of fixing very quickly. It's truly embarrassing, especially now that you're owned by a large corporation.
I think we all express our frustration here because we want the site to work properly and we want the company to do well. Because when iStock does well its contributors do well (sort of). But complaints about basic functionality are taken as personal insults and met with snarls of derision. With the tremendous percentage of commission iStock takes, it also expects its contributors to cough up their own earnings to get sales information? It can't fix a simple function that's been broken for weeks now?
It can't...or it won't? After all, iStock is capable of running a half price sale flawlessly while contributor stats languish.
It's a pragmatic solution, the site isn't working and you want to see stats in an easy to view way? What's the best way to do it? Complain and when that doesn't work complain some more or try to find a solution? I chose to offer possible solutions. Do people want to get stats or just complain that iStock isn't working?
And to answer your question bhr, 'Why?". It might have something to do with being called a liar, a stooge, a shill, or arrogant when you offer help. Or maybe people left to find a site where there were less emoticons in use?
Asking contributors to spend more than a hundred dollars a year to get access to stats that should be provided as a matter of course by their representative is not pragmatic. It's ludicrous. Especially when, I'm sure, many of your contributors don't earn that much at iStock in a year.
You're misunderstanding me then. I'm not asking you to do anything. I'm telling you there are ways to see your stats if you really want to. One way is to spend some money. Another is to spend some time. Other than that I don't think there is a good solution. If you just want your totals you can add up all the money you've cased out since the stats broke and add it to your current balance. The raw data is all correct so going through your sales on the 'my uploads' page will get you all the info too.
The good solution is for iStock to FIX THE WEBSITE. The good solution is NOT for contributors to spend more time or more money figuring out stats every other website is perfectly capable of providing. Contributors should spend their time and money creating content. All iStock's arrogance does is drive contributors away. I'm a perfect example. I'm a creative director; illustration is a hobby for me. I never would have even noticed there were other stock sites, really, if iStock hadn't aggravated me so much. (I was aware of Getty and Corbis, of course, and Veer; all the art directors I work with use them). It was only after getting completely fed up with iStock that I started poking around and discovered Shutterstock. I uploaded my work and immediately started earning 4X as much there. Until then my goal was to get enough sales at iStock to hopefully one day go exclusive. iStock immediately became the site I uploaded to much less often.
2752
« on: November 22, 2013, 15:15 »
Well, now it's very clear you work for iStock. Only their employees would be arrogant enough to put the onus of getting sales stats on their contributors and not on themselves. The site is poorly run, with continuous problems other sites either don't have or are capable of fixing very quickly. It's truly embarrassing, especially now that you're owned by a large corporation.
I think we all express our frustration here because we want the site to work properly and we want the company to do well. Because when iStock does well its contributors do well (sort of). But complaints about basic functionality are taken as personal insults and met with snarls of derision. With the tremendous percentage of commission iStock takes, it also expects its contributors to cough up their own earnings to get sales information? It can't fix a simple function that's been broken for weeks now?
It can't...or it won't? After all, iStock is capable of running a half price sale flawlessly while contributor stats languish.
It's a pragmatic solution, the site isn't working and you want to see stats in an easy to view way? What's the best way to do it? Complain and when that doesn't work complain some more or try to find a solution? I chose to offer possible solutions. Do people want to get stats or just complain that iStock isn't working?
And to answer your question bhr, 'Why?". It might have something to do with being called a liar, a stooge, a shill, or arrogant when you offer help. Or maybe people left to find a site where there were less emoticons in use?
Asking contributors to spend more than a hundred dollars a year to get access to stats that should be provided as a matter of course by their representative is not pragmatic. It's ludicrous. Especially when, I'm sure, many of your contributors don't earn that much at iStock in a year.
2753
« on: November 22, 2013, 14:57 »
So then basically all the many other options you kept referring to are vaporware. There's stockperformer, which costs 90 euros/year (which breaks down to, what, around $140/year give or take?)
There's a mobile phone app, which probably won't work on my 3 year old phone, and then there's counting sales and income one by one for the whole month? For some of us they run into the thousands, so that's not practical.
All other sites provide daily, or at least monthly stats graphs. I don't want to pay >$100 to get stats just for one incompetently managed site. I also don't want to have to go out and buy a phone for >$200 that I don't otherwise need just so I can get an app to do the stats for that same incompetently managed site.
At least we have exposed the lie of a plethora of convenient alternatives to Istock stats, so you can stop shoveling that into the conversation.
You are a very bitter person. Always making personal insults, I've tried to help and again you are insulting me. You said you get thousands of sales a month from iStock alone surely you can afford $140 a year to get the stats how you want them. I guess you can continue to whine about it and make personal attacks but that won't solve your problem. Good luck to you, I won't be responding to any more of your comments.
Well, now it's very clear you work for iStock. Only their employees would be arrogant enough to put the onus of getting sales stats on their contributors and not on themselves. The site is poorly run, with continuous problems other sites either don't have or are capable of fixing very quickly. It's truly embarrassing, especially now that you're owned by a large corporation. I think we all express our frustration here because we want the site to work properly and we want the company to do well. Because when iStock does well its contributors do well (sort of). But complaints about basic functionality are taken as personal insults and met with snarls of derision. With the tremendous percentage of commission iStock takes, it also expects its contributors to cough up their own earnings to get sales information? It can't fix a simple function that's been broken for weeks now? It can't...or it won't? After all, iStock is capable of running a half price sale flawlessly while contributor stats languish.
2754
« on: November 21, 2013, 14:22 »
Yes, we get at least 50% less RPI.
That's how sales work. They are trying to get more volume, attract new buyers, or bring back ones that left. The idea is to make more money overall than you would without it, hopefully it works.
Except they've already tried it and asked for feedback for contributors, and nobody seemed to earn any more money. If the contributors aren't earning any more, then iStock isn't either.
I seem to remember a few people doing very well or at least being very happy about the sale.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357676&page=1
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353935&page=1
Well, the iStock forums are a sad place to be. You must be happy, happy joy joy or your thread is closed, you're banned, etc. Even knowing that, I don't see anyone reporting higher earnings, just expressing hope that the sale will make a difference.
And you are freakily well-informed if you are not a paid employee of iStock.
It doesn't take much work to look this stuff up, I also remember the last time there was a sale and basically the same discussion happened back then (many of these types of discussions have happened before). When there is a sale in 6 months we'll have it again. I make my living from stock so I feel like I have a duty to myself to be as well informed as possible.
Great! Then you can point us to the thread where people reported higher earnings during a sale? Or no?
2755
« on: November 21, 2013, 14:13 »
I was accepted with simpler initial illustrations than these. I think harnesses on the reindeer might be helpful, but if you look at other Santa/reindeer vectors on iStock some of the reindeer are attached just by reins or nothing at all. I don't think you need to be as literal with illustrations.
2756
« on: November 21, 2013, 14:07 »
Yes, we get at least 50% less RPI.
That's how sales work. They are trying to get more volume, attract new buyers, or bring back ones that left. The idea is to make more money overall than you would without it, hopefully it works.
Except they've already tried it and asked for feedback for contributors, and nobody seemed to earn any more money. If the contributors aren't earning any more, then iStock isn't either.
I seem to remember a few people doing very well or at least being very happy about the sale.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357676&page=1
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353935&page=1
Well, the iStock forums are a sad place to be. You must be happy, happy joy joy or your thread is closed, you're banned, etc. Even knowing that, I don't see anyone reporting higher earnings, just expressing hope that the sale will make a difference. And you are freakily well-informed if you are not a paid employee of iStock.
2757
« on: November 21, 2013, 13:57 »
Yes, we get at least 50% less RPI.
That's how sales work. They are trying to get more volume, attract new buyers, or bring back ones that left. The idea is to make more money overall than you would without it, hopefully it works.
Except they've already tried it and asked for feedback for contributors, and nobody seemed to earn any more money. If the contributors aren't earning any more, then iStock isn't either.
2758
« on: November 21, 2013, 12:56 »
Half the price means that the customer pay it half the price.
But I think that the contributor will be paid the same price as ever.
Right?
No. We get half as much as usual. And some of my files are more than 50% off. For example, 5-credit files have been reduced to 2 credits.
On the other hand, when Shutterstock has a sale we still get the same amount of money.
That's only true for sub sales other sales work on a % just like the iStock sale. They 'flow' the discount on to the contributor.
How do you know? You are not even submitting to SS. I never got a discounted ODD or EL.
Me neither. There was a thread on the iStock forums the first time they had a half price sale, and though some contributors got double the usual sales (me included), we didn't earn any additional money. Some people had a drop in earnings. That's what's happening to me right now. If you run a half price sale on top of a sitewide half price promotion and you do it repeatedly, it's not so special any more.
2759
« on: November 21, 2013, 11:31 »
Half the price means that the customer pay it half the price.
But I think that the contributor will be paid the same price as ever.
Right?
No. We get half as much as usual. And some of my files are more than 50% off. For example, 5-credit files have been reduced to 2 credits. On the other hand, when Shutterstock has a sale we still get the same amount of money.
2760
« on: November 21, 2013, 10:02 »
Yep, I mentioned their amazing half-price sale, which is running and reducing my earnings without a hitch, in the thread about the lack of sales data that never seems to be able to be fixed.
2761
« on: November 21, 2013, 09:59 »
Welcome to the cult of Apple. You're going to be very happy here.
2762
« on: November 20, 2013, 14:25 »
2763
« on: November 20, 2013, 09:16 »
This thread reminds me of one of my favorite commercials ever:
2764
« on: November 19, 2013, 17:03 »
I like them! I think they would be accepted. Just be careful of the transparency around the stars in the Santa Claus illustration. I know there have been some issues with transparencies (I avoid them), and I don't think you really need it.
2765
« on: November 19, 2013, 15:32 »
I would suggest making them as different from one another as possible. If you're accepted, you can always immediately upload all of your Christmas/Santa Claus files.
Sure, I think the folks here would be happy to take a look at your files.
2766
« on: November 18, 2013, 13:38 »
What's come to a halt?
There are more Symbiostock-linked sites than ever, more images than ever (more than 170,000 now). More sales than ever. People are find ways to make their sites look awesome.
Symbiostock's death has been greatly exaggerated.
Those words were an unfortunate choice indeed.
But, I am already talking to someone who is willing to help with the legal side. I have emailed Leo about it. We'll see where it goes. But if its only to provide a legal disclaimer for Leo, its no problem and probably very quickly sorted.
Oh, just rephrasing a famous Mark Twain quote there.
2767
« on: November 18, 2013, 13:33 »
What's come to a halt?
There are more Symbiostock-linked sites than ever, more images than ever (more than 170,000 now). More sales than ever. People are find ways to make their sites look awesome.
Symbiostock's death has been greatly exaggerated.
2768
« on: November 18, 2013, 09:34 »
Weird...I can get in on my iPad, but not my laptop. My earnings summary is not keeping up with the actual downloads. My sales are up big time. I took screenshots to make sure it's not a dream. New search algorithm?
2769
« on: November 18, 2013, 09:15 »
I got in for a few seconds and saw that I have many more sales than usual, then it was down again. What's up with that?
2770
« on: November 18, 2013, 07:33 »
Wow. So now I realize how addicted I am to checking my SS sales stats.
2771
« on: November 17, 2013, 11:39 »
From the Shutterstock website:
What happens to my account if I die?
Shutterstock honors the instructions of estate representatives worldwide. As an example, your portfolio may be transferred over to a beneficiary if it is mentioned in a will that is reviewed and approved by a lawyer or notary public. Your beneficiary should approach us with the necessary paperwork for an account transfer to take place. The best thing to do is to seek legal counsel as part of your estate planning process.
2772
« on: November 16, 2013, 19:38 »
With vectors, I put text on top of my illustration in whatever would be considered copy space. It's not necessarily white or even a solid color. For jpgs I either omit the text or use it over a flat color so the sample text can be easily erased. Of course, the majority of my illustrations don't have copy space, so I don't put text on most of them.
2773
« on: November 16, 2013, 16:50 »
When I put text on my images (where appropriate), they usually sell much better. In the case of the heart visual linked to above, people may want to download it to use as a Valentine's greeting card, and in that case they don't have to do a thing to it because the text is already there. But because the text is also on a flat color, it's easy to remove and replace, for those who have the wherewithall to do it.
Professional designers download our work, but so do a lot of non-designers, and it helps the latter to visualize what an ad or poster or card can look like when you place text on it...even if it's placeholder text. That's my theory, anyway.
2774
« on: November 15, 2013, 20:26 »
Can you give us some examples? Sometimes I forget and upload a jpg version of my illustrations with text on them, and they're rejected because the text is too hard to remove. I'm not sure there's any way to make a jpg with a separate text layer.
2775
« on: November 15, 2013, 17:34 »
I think the iStock IT team also built the Obamacare website.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
