|
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 - heywoody
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 58
51
« on: July 27, 2015, 12:10 »
This happens sometimes, they'll turn up 
52
« on: July 26, 2015, 12:54 »
So...
1. Virtually anyone who has done this for a few years has seen a drop in RPI - good old supply & demand
2. As I and many others have said, it's pretty clear that focus, WB etc is not the issue - points made about communication, better reject reasons etc.
3. Complaints about rejections are not limited to 38c shooters, in fact, they are probably a minority,
4. Most of the big guns don't seem to have a problem - presumably they are adapting by either doing different material or, from what I can see, doing something fresh and original with the more trad stock subjects.
53
« on: July 26, 2015, 05:52 »
Again with the "newbies" - I have to say this is as incoherent a post as I've seen. Many folks have offered explanations for the review process but we still have this paranoid insistence on conspiracy theories from those (oldies???) who have some unfounded sense that anything meeting a certain technical standard should be accepted.
correction . conspiracy is when one person use the word many folks and incoherent in the same paragraph , while still pretending he did not see how many pages were in shutterstock forum re this issue.
many pages of complaints on both shutterstock and here re the review process is not conspiracy theory, it's evidence.
get your fact straight.
The only evidence is that there are complaints and that the rejection reasons need work. The idea that there are rogue reviewer tails wagging the corporate dog is ridiculous. The idea that folks get accepted because the know someone or that newbies are favoured is equally ridiculous, why would they do that? What the evidence does suggest is that technical quality is no longer a guarantee of acceptance at SS. They do need to clarify what material the do want and to make the rejections reasons more realistic as, clearly, white balance and focus are not the reasons.
54
« on: July 25, 2015, 17:06 »
As you can see the shutterstock reviewers are consistently letting in plenty of LCV images with questionable content and quality. I opened around 30 of these new images and then navigated to the photographers portfolios. Without exception they were all new contributors who had started submitting in 2015.
Now back to the review issue, with content like that coming in and much better content and quality being rejected everyday, we really need to ask what is wrong with the review process.
i had the same impression when i went to ss forum to see them cheering on their latest sales ...
most what sjlocke call (in the other thread here) as " .... pictures that won't sell ". i can't remember sean's exact words but those are exactly the pictures that are on those pages of cheering for their latest sales. no doubt newbies too.
back to your final statement. i too cannot figure out why LCV from newbies are getting in while many experienced images are being mass rejected (not my words, but according to the thread here and in ss forum).
only thing i can draw comparision is someone is letting in alot of their friends or children cousins cousins... a long time ago, in the days of govt service nepotism heydays before the crash ,
the same thing flooded the offices . many graduates and mid managers were laid-off to be replaced by absolute morons to run the govt offices. it still going on, in fact , in brasil, there is a custom where you keep your 4,5 surnames to identity yourself and get hired in the govt office. not by merit but by surnames.
this is the only possible explanation i can give for ss letting in LCV from newbies while rejecting many experienced work as OOF and wrong WB. shareholders speak loud , as they say, money talks and bs walks.
what do you think, gbalex? any other possible explanation why suddenly my colleagues have developed disability to WB and focus properly???
Again with the "newbies" - I have to say this is as incoherent a post as I've seen. Many folks have offered explanations for the review process but we still have this paranoid insistence on conspiracy theories from those (oldies???) who have some unfounded sense that anything meeting a certain technical standard should be accepted.
55
« on: July 25, 2015, 13:03 »
Now back to the review issue, with content like that coming in and much better content and quality being rejected everyday, we really need to ask what is wrong with the review process.
You have right. But, also, I think we need also to ask why sales are dropping and, for all microstock sites, why there are so many subs than other types of licenses....
Every company wants consistency revenue, especially a public one. On demand and single downloads are unstable and inconsistent, so they actively encourage subscriptions. Imagine if you have customers who pays you a monthly fee to pay to use your images and you acquire new customers every month. Your revenue graph would have no dips...just a consistent curve upward.
Complete nonsense.
Agencies still have to pay subscription royalties to contributors which means the amount of money they make from a subscription depends on how much of the subscription the buyer uses during the month. Which is unpredictable and creates the little dips in your revenue graph.
Every company that sells products or services of any kind, public or not, is at the mercy of buyer demand. That is susceptible to economic variations, seasonal variations, trends, and about ten thousand other factors. Luckily when you market on an international level to millions of users it smooths out the dips.
Subscriptions are popular with agencies not because of some noobie notion of consistent revenue, but because of the dirty little secret which is that any portion of the subscription that goes unused by the end of the month goes into the agency's pocket. Since very few subscription buyers use the entire subscription quota, the agency gets a lot of extra cash. They tend to like that little perk.
Obviously, the fact that buyers do not use their quota (not a dirty secret but a well known fact) forms part of the pricing calculation and the resulting consistent revenue. On what planet does your point in any way counter what hongover said even without the condescending noobie" comment?
56
« on: July 25, 2015, 07:26 »
I wonder how new photographers are able to get into SS with such high rejection rates. It's extremely hard to get 7/10 images approved these days.
I think its because they want newbie content because they pay less commission.
No, they want the content that they want
You upload 3D figures right? nice work btw, must take a lot of time. Something that is rare (I think) on stock but do you actually sell them well? No use in having a niche and brag about no rejections if it won't sell. ART has it's own place in the market and it isn't microstock. That is exactly why you don't get rejections in the first place, reviewers see no competition in you, same with the weed guy.
"THEY" is not the agency, "THEY" are the reviewers and they seem to be on an agenda of their own. Do you think the agency wants 10k images of weed in one portfolio? not to mention the other LCV "niches"?
I rarely get rejections anymore on SS but that doesn't make me blind either. HCV images getting rejected to make room for LCV?
Actually they sell just ok, not near as well as the folks that are really professional / successful but probably a lot better than equivalent standard photos and you are 100% correct that my acceptance rate is most likely because Im doing material with less competition. Not bragging BTW, just stating facts.The thing is that you are completely missing the point as to what constitutes HCV / LCV for the agencies. If one of my images sell 100 times it means the agency probably gets 70 sales they wouldnt have got otherwise. Another guy may get 10,000 sales with something more mainstream (HCV for the contributor) but, if the image wasnt there, the agency would probably still get the 10,000 sales because there are tons of very similar alternatives available (so LCV for the agency).At the end of the day, its all about supply and demand.
57
« on: July 25, 2015, 06:58 »
I doubt it rejections would be much more consistent if this were the case. Its much simpler they don't have a category for "we don't really like your photo and don't think it will sell"
Exactly
58
« on: July 23, 2015, 17:20 »
Is there any way to find out which photo was sold via the PP? It's not listed with the regular credit sales. I agree with you that IS's royalty reporting system is frustratingly opaque.
There is a 3rd party script that runs on Google chrome. The old forum (which will go away end of this month), has the details. You can follow this link to read more about it: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352385&page=1
Since the old forum is going away, I am also going ahead and pasting the link to access the 3rd party script: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/istock-myuploads-fixes/ckloododgagaeepfamopjnjgbhbanlcg
Correct, there is also that Android app.
However, both apps have a limitation in terms of sales reported. If you have "too many" sales in a month, you will only see the latest ones. In my case, the Android app list sales only down to June 10th. I can't see sales made between June1st and June 9th, let alone May.
Similarly, with these 3rd party Chrome scripts, a lot of popular photos only show June sales. There is now way I can figure-out what was sold in May.
The way my scripts work and the way these probably do, is to work backwards through the sales for a particular image (the site structure is bloody awful) and type of sale (regular, PP sub etc) and stop when it reaches the latest previously recorded sale. Earlier sales for an image that has later sales already reported are not picked up. I picked up some May sales today and deleted all PP from April onwards before running the script so they would be collected.
59
« on: July 22, 2015, 17:45 »
I wonder how new photographers are able to get into SS with such high rejection rates. It's extremely hard to get 7/10 images approved these days.
I think its because they want newbie content because they pay less commission.
No, they want the content that they want
60
« on: July 11, 2015, 09:33 »
The only thing that ever really rankled me here was the brouhaha about how MSG should start requiring posters to reveal their real identity. Some of those self-righteous rants about 'hiding behind anonymity' started to get under my skin. But in the end it's all just text on a screen, isn't it?
From what I've seen, most of the snide, condescending, personal commentary comes from the anonymous and, in this situation, [/size]'hiding behind anonymity'[/size] is exactly what's happening. Fortunately, most of the posters who remain anonymous are not like this and most conversations would be poorer without some of them.
61
« on: July 09, 2015, 17:49 »
I don't see the point in dumping sites. Maybe these should go if you have to do it.
Crestock
Panther
PIXTA
Feature Pics
Zoonar
Yaymicro
Photodune
The rest should carry on making money, just leave them alone or upload once a year. Sold 1 photo for over $1,000 with alamy last month, seems crazy not to be in that lottery when it costs nothing to leave your portfolio there. You might never get a big sale but at least having images there gives you a chance.
Excellent advice
62
« on: July 09, 2015, 17:05 »
On the ther hand - it could be Port has no Commercial Value, but who knows..
But your sales on IS got only a bit more 10 dls, if those subs save you?How about subs working on IS? How do you upload your 1506 files into IS in few months?I just fiind you registered there in Jan this year.
So annoying when anonymous people comment on non-anonymous people's portfolios.
I think anyone is allowed to reply here so long as the reply is relevant to the subject. The subject is about the performance of the OP's files on the sites he mentioned.
100% agree with Shelma. Of course anyone is allowed to reply but its pretty bad manners to comment on someones work while hiding your own. A relevant reply might consist of how well ones (hidden) port performs relatively across the different sites as THAT is what the OP was posting about.Also, the IS stats show regular sales only and, as we all know, that is a tiny number compared to PP so not safe to draw any conclusions from that.
63
« on: July 04, 2015, 09:26 »
Keywords here look pretty spammy anyway
64
« on: June 30, 2015, 17:23 »
Nothing new. This is what will happen in Greece, if the banks will collapse: a barter based economy. A primitive economy. People will pay each other in raw products and services
In your clip: all these people will not be 100 dollars richer, but they will all realise that, in fact, they had no debt. That 100 bill helped them realize that, by closing the debt circle. Without it, they will continue to harass each other for their 1 on 1 debts, when, in fact, all of them were debt free. They could have easily settled their debts by getting all in the same room. But that will be rather hard to do, if the circle is bigger, with many more than 4 or 5 people involved in the transaction.
This is why money, a common denominator, is better than barter.
This is what banks do, indeed.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
Supposed to be ironic. For reference, the clip is an actor portraying one of the bankers primarily responsible for the meltdown in Ireland - in other words the kind of smoke & mirrors thinking that caused the problem rather than folks actually getting richer.
66
« on: June 28, 2015, 17:22 »
Alamy has a strict rules? For me, they are the only agency, beside iStock, that didn't reject any of my files.
You said it man - those sites are about as picky as flickr 
67
« on: June 28, 2015, 17:13 »
Stockphotosart, your conclusion doesn't make sense at all, just a fallacy. And the situation in Greece is not even the same as in Ireland. Ireland didnt cook the books and people here pay their taxes. I am angry at the banks and the housing sector for putting us in this hole. But the government did a great job getting Ireland out of the hole. I dont see that happening in Greece. The situations are completely different.
And it was not me who called anyone lazy.
If you want to argue with personal attacks, then the conversation for me is over.
The Irish government did a great job kissing German banker ass at the expense of its weakest citizens - not my definition of a great job. Sometimes moral considerations supersede legal responsibilities. If your children are hungry you feed them before paying the banks (speaking metaphorically).
68
« on: June 28, 2015, 10:02 »
Dont tell me what I did and did not experience. And do you think moving back home is easy or a solution or that I would bail when things get tough? How many time have you emigrated?
your li Are you saying I'm wrong and you did have a mortgage and family and had your livelihood yanked from under you? Did you have to live under the cut backs while depending on the pittance the state provides? If the answer is no, you haven't experienced the effects of austerity. I have never emigrated but would do so in a heartbeat if that was needed and I certainly meant no disrespect in suggesting that you would probably have done so in the circumstances I outlined.
69
« on: June 28, 2015, 06:08 »
Paul. I live in Ireland. I have experienced austerity measures although because I was single young and no children it was not hard to adjust
You didn't really experience austerity even if it was going on around you, other than paying the USC. If you were in the building trade as a simple navvie or even an engineer or architect and had a mortgage, taken out in good faith, and a few kids you would have had the full on experience and would be gone outta here. The high moral ground is often fine until one actually experience a given situation and then, suddenly, one becomes slightly more flexible.
70
« on: June 28, 2015, 05:57 »
Greece cooked the books. They we're in a hole and needed EU money to survive. Of course debts were created. Its called a bail out. We never should have. We should have cut them out there and then. They're not held hostage. Nonsense. They can leave whenever they want. But they don't because of their greedy nature
This is like saying every muslim is a bloodthirsty terrorist - not true and a ridiculous statement. Both of us live in a country that had the very same type of corrupt greedy leadership and the same corrupt and greedy bankers - I personally lost my job as a result of the crash. The difference is that Ireland is the European base for most of the biggest multi-nationals (and I am fortunate to have certain skills and experience that these guys want). Only for that, Ireland would be in the same position, I'd be unemployed and you'd be on the boat back to the Netherlands. My own government's sycophantic attitude with the germans and behaviour towards greece is actually pretty sickening.
71
« on: June 28, 2015, 05:27 »
What I find very interesting about the puritanical "so you sow, so shall you reap" brigade is that may of those with this attitude are the same folks complain about the "unfairness" of the big bad agencies who reject their work or pay them buttons. The agencies are commercial bodies with no considerations other than the bottom line. The bad decisions that created the situation in Greece were not made by the folks who are suffering the most.
Is it fair to say then that, anyone who bought into the whole MS thing because they felt money was to be made, and now find their income eroded by increased competition and low prices are to blame for their situation?
Have some empathy guys because, like the Greeks, most of us have zero control of events that can land us in the *, and it could happen to any of us.
72
« on: June 27, 2015, 08:31 »
Paul is absolutely correct. The point here is not so much about the dire situation of the Greek people though. The point is that the EU, which is supposed to have social justice as a core principle, is applying the jackboot to the necks of the Greeks in order to serve the interests of very wealthy people.
73
« on: June 27, 2015, 07:16 »
I agree. People in Greece are going hungry and dying because they cant afford medical treatment in order to make rich people even richer. Whatever the legalities, this is morally reprehensible and the EU governments, especially my own, should hang their heads in shame. The referendum is a way of standing up to bullies and very courageous in the circumstances. 
74
« on: June 26, 2015, 17:08 »
Sounds a bit like friendly banks, honest lawyers or the vehicle clamping "service"...
75
« on: June 23, 2015, 17:15 »
I have my own scripts - sales reporting there is like everything else there, over-complex page structure that is not really fit for purpose especially when you compare to the simple, effective way DT and Ft do it.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 58
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
