Author Topic: Stock "factories" slowing uploads? (Read 38946 times)

Artemis · « **Reply #50 on:** July 15, 2010, 11:32 »

Pretty wild speculations and assumptions on DT these days; be friendly or they will boycot your portfolio with their magic button, they keep your AR down artificially, yuri 2:0...
Still havent seen any evidence for any of those accusations

sharpshot · « **Reply #51 on:** July 15, 2010, 11:56 »

Perhaps Yuri just got lucky with a lenient reviewer? I don't upload much to DT any more, I just can't see the sense in them rejecting images that would probably sell well. Lots of other sites accept them and if DT don't change this policy, I think they will fall out of the big 4 and become a second rate site. Its a real shame because they do so many things better than the other sites.

click_click · « **Reply #52 on:** July 15, 2010, 12:49 »

Yuri pumped 500 images online this month - and I don't agree that the rules don't apply to him but everyone else.

He has major financial leverage there - a rough estimate would be that DT earns about $100,000 a year just because of him if not more.

DT would be stupid to drop someone of that caliber but now it appears that he makes the rules. Obviously not fair to other contributors.

IMO, he should be selling his stuff on the Macros anyway.

Dook · « **Reply #53 on:** July 15, 2010, 16:45 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 15, 2010, 10:40

Did he hire a new intern or something? All those "girl isolated on white doing random things" images.

I noticed this, too. He is probably researching new markets or doing macro. By uploading not so good pictures of his second or third shooter he's sending us a message that micro is more about quantity than quality.

Randy McKown · « **Reply #54 on:** July 15, 2010, 17:29 »

Quote from: click_click on July 15, 2010, 12:49

Yuri pumped 500 images online this month - and I don't agree that the rules don't apply to him but everyone else.

He has major financial leverage there - a rough estimate would be that DT earns about $100,000 a year just because of him if not more.

DT would be stupid to drop someone of that caliber but now it appears that he makes the rules. Obviously not fair to other contributors.

IMO, he should be selling his stuff on the Macros anyway.

I doubt very seriously that the financial department gives two craps about putting man hours into puckering up for 100K over a 12 month span. They probably net more than that every 30 days off interest on their holdings alone. I'm sure there's plenty of eye rolling and laughing behind the scenes going on there right now LOL.

zimmytws · « **Reply #55 on:** July 15, 2010, 17:47 »

I doubt very seriously that the financial department gives two craps about putting man hours into puckering up for 100K over a 12 month span. They probably net more than that every 30 days off interest on their holdings alone. I'm sure there's plenty of eye rolling and laughing behind the scenes going on there right now LOL.
[/quote]

Their "holdings"? Dreamstime is not some multi-national conglomerate. My guess is that, excluding reviewers, Dreamstime has less than 10 employees.

Randy McKown · « **Reply #56 on:** July 15, 2010, 18:52 »

Quote from: zimmytws on July 15, 2010, 17:47

I doubt very seriously that the financial department gives two craps about putting man hours into puckering up for 100K over a 12 month span. They probably net more than that every 30 days off interest on their holdings alone. I'm sure there's plenty of eye rolling and laughing behind the scenes going on there right now LOL.

Their "holdings"? Dreamstime is not some multi-national conglomerate. My guess is that, excluding reviewers, Dreamstime has less than 10 employees.
[/quote]

I wasn't referring to stock holdings I was referring to contributor holdings. All the money that is being held by the agencies until payout balance is reached .. you think the CEO stuffs your money in a bed mattress for safe keeping? Nope I'm sure it sits in an bank account drawing interest turning a profit ... for them .. it's not your bank account.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #57 on:** July 15, 2010, 18:55 »

Quote from: Randy McKown on July 15, 2010, 18:52

Quote from: zimmytws on July 15, 2010, 17:47

I doubt very seriously that the financial department gives two craps about putting man hours into puckering up for 100K over a 12 month span. They probably net more than that every 30 days off interest on their holdings alone. I'm sure there's plenty of eye rolling and laughing behind the scenes going on there right now LOL.

Their "holdings"? Dreamstime is not some multi-national conglomerate. My guess is that, excluding reviewers, Dreamstime has less than 10 employees.

I wasn't referring to stock holdings I was referring to contributor holdings. All the money that is being held by the agencies until payout balance is reached .. you think the CEO stuffs your money in a bed mattress for safe keeping? Nope I'm sure it sits in an bank account drawing interest turning a profit ... for them .. it's not your bank account.

[/quote]

I think they may be multi-national. I know they have offices in Nashville, Tennessee. And, probably a LOT more than ten employees. Dreamstime is pretty well heeled ... I think.

zimmytws · « **Reply #58 on:** July 15, 2010, 19:30 »

Quote from: Randy McKown on July 15, 2010, 18:52

Quote from: zimmytws on July 15, 2010, 17:47

I doubt very seriously that the financial department gives two craps about putting man hours into puckering up for 100K over a 12 month span. They probably net more than that every 30 days off interest on their holdings alone. I'm sure there's plenty of eye rolling and laughing behind the scenes going on there right now LOL.

Their "holdings"? Dreamstime is not some multi-national conglomerate. My guess is that, excluding reviewers, Dreamstime has less than 10 employees.

I wasn't referring to stock holdings I was referring to contributor holdings. All the money that is being held by the agencies until payout balance is reached .. you think the CEO stuffs your money in a bed mattress for safe keeping? Nope I'm sure it sits in an bank account drawing interest turning a profit ... for them .. it's not your bank account.

[/quote]

Well who knows if DTs cashflow is so immense that can afford to store wads of cash in low-interest bearing accounts, when they have lots of bills to pay too. My guess is that, like most compaines, 90%+ $ goes out the doors in the form of bills paid.

Kone · « **Reply #59 on:** July 15, 2010, 19:54 »

Quote from: click_click on July 15, 2010, 12:49

Yuri pumped 500 images online this month - and I don't agree that the rules don't apply to him but everyone else.

He has major financial leverage there - a rough estimate would be that DT earns about $100,000 a year just because of him if not more.

DT would be stupid to drop someone of that caliber but now it appears that he makes the rules. Obviously not fair to other contributors.

IMO, he should be selling his stuff on the Macros anyway.

He is a major financial leverage everywhere, so why wouldn't he deserve special status?
Why wouldn't it be fair?
What would you do if DT is your private company?

lisafx · « **Reply #60 on:** July 15, 2010, 22:35 »

Quote from: Kone on July 15, 2010, 19:54

He is a major financial leverage everywhere, so why wouldn't he deserve special status?
Why wouldn't it be fair?
What would you do if DT is your private company?

Well there's fair, and then there's logical. Is it fair Yuri might have a special deal at DT? No. Is it logical? Yes.

I can't blame Dreamstime for wanting to accommodate it's top selling artist. And fair or not, how many of us would turn down a special deal if it was offered?

FD · « **Reply #61 on:** July 15, 2010, 23:39 »

Quote from: rene on July 15, 2010, 08:56

Now it's official, Yuri is uploading to DT. And yes, they are similar. Yuri seems to be a winner of this conflict. Upload's rules were changed and series are accepted again.
Yuri 2:0 Achilles

Ah, another keen observer.

The scene is enchanted Dublin, early June. All wizards were there, defying the volcano ashes of Mordor. In a dimly lit beer cavern full of Guinness fumes and candles smoking, they couldn't escape each other. Ellen of Oz, Jonathan Gandalf and Yuri Legolas conspired over their new "free" business model, the model to control them all. One Greek god noticing them brooding in a dark corner got scared, and so they made the deal and sealed the pact with the sweat of all too rough feathered rejects. And that's it.

There are more things between Getty Macrostock and Thinkstock Nanostock, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Try to bring it up in the DT forum. Make sure you mention a BME too.

FD · « **Reply #62 on:** July 15, 2010, 23:58 »

Quote from: Kone on July 15, 2010, 19:54

What would you do if DT is your private company?

If it was my private company, I would make contributors happy being the best stock site around with 50% commissions. Then, gaining speed, I would introduce subs for peanuts. Finally in the top 4, I would lower commissions down to 30% suddenly and sell it as god's gift compared to the 20% of iStock. For the more brain challenged ones, I would make the site a feelgood place with wows and yays on the forum all over.

When profits consequently soared through the roof, I would sell it off and live happily ever thereafter. I would keep Rolmat as a servant though, to pour me Daiquiri on the rocks under a palm tree.

sharpshot · « **Reply #63 on:** July 16, 2010, 03:06 »

I think DT have made the right decision to accept similars from Yuri, if that is the case. The rest of us combined are far more important than Yuri. If a lot of us have lost confidence in DT because of their current review policy and have stopped uploading, they are going to lose lots of money. They need to change the review policy for all of us.

cathyslife · « **Reply #64 on:** July 16, 2010, 07:06 »

I don't have a problem with them taking Yuri back and I don't have a problem with them accepting Yuri's similars. I looked at his latest uploads, and even though it is the same model from the same angle wearing the same clothes, she does have different expressions and movements, and each and every one might be able to be used in a design.

What I have a problem with is not extending that same courtesy to other contributors. Since I don't upload similars like that, I can't speak from personal experience. Since lisafx has said that she is getting rejects for similars, and since I know that she is a good photographer, with good sense about the similars, then I think that DT is making a big mistake by allowing one contributor special rights on this similars issue. And I have no doubt there are others on this forum who are also good photographers who are submitting similars "responsibly". It's not fair or logical to them either.

Kone · « **Reply #65 on:** July 16, 2010, 08:41 »

Quote from: lisafx on July 15, 2010, 22:35

Quote from: Kone on July 15, 2010, 19:54

He is a major financial leverage everywhere, so why wouldn't he deserve special status?
Why wouldn't it be fair?
What would you do if DT is your private company?

Well there's fair, and then there's logical. Is it fair Yuri might have a special deal at DT? No. Is it logical? Yes.

I can't blame Dreamstime for wanting to accommodate it's top selling artist. And fair or not, how many of us would turn down a special deal if it was offered?

I would.

lisafx · « **Reply #66 on:** July 16, 2010, 08:46 »

Quote from: cclapper on July 16, 2010, 07:06

Since lisafx has said that she is getting rejects for similars, and since I know that she is a good photographer, with good sense about the similars, then I think that DT is making a big mistake by allowing one contributor special rights on this similars issue. And I have no doubt there are others on this forum who are also good photographers who are submitting similars "responsibly". It's not fair or logical to them either.

Thanks for the vote of confidence Cathy

.

I just got two more batches reviewed with quite a few "similars" rejects. My normally 95%+ approval ratio at DT has sunk to 85% recently. So clearly this exception is only for Yuri.

As you point out, Cathy, the "similars" were only similar in that they were the same models and subject matter but the action and emotions in each one were totally different. I understand what DT is trying to do here, but they are painting with way to broad a brush...

Since approval ratio affects image placement at DT this may ultimately affect my uploading there too. Not that it matters. I'm not a big-fish like Yuri...

cathyslife · « **Reply #67 on:** July 16, 2010, 09:16 »

Quote from: lisafx on July 16, 2010, 08:46

As you point out, Cathy, the "similars" were only similar in that they were the same models and subject matter but the action and emotions in each one were totally different. I understand what DT is trying to do here, but they are painting with way to broad a brush...

I totally agree.

Quote

Since approval ratio affects image placement at DT this may ultimately affect my uploading there too. Not that it matters. I'm not a big-fish like Yuri...

Maybe not as big a fish as Yuri, but I would definitely call you a big fish.

Oldhand · « **Reply #68 on:** July 16, 2010, 09:22 »

There's more little fish than big ones in the sea...

Yuri has spat his dummy out and the tantrum has been rewarded. All's fair in business and war, but is it ethical and fair? No.

DT's acceptance ratio and correlation to search results is restrictive. It prevents me from uploading everything there.

I know what I'd do as DT's boss. If an image passes the reviever but is not wanted in their library, then reject. If it does not pass the reviewer, reject and affect the acceptance ratio. A two tier system.

Just a thought, I normally have one a day.

Rgds

Oldhand

sharpshot · « **Reply #69 on:** July 16, 2010, 10:54 »

This policy might work if

1. Contributors always know the right ones from a series to upload.
2. Reviewers are perfect and never reject the most appropriate image from a series.
3. Buyers are happy with any image they find and don't want variations to choose from.

As none of those are true, this policy is flawed and is going to damage DT.

Oldhand · « **Reply #70 on:** July 16, 2010, 11:16 »

Actually I thought it had some mileage. Submit 5 from series, all pass QC, only keep two, no damage to accpetance ratio. I take your point though, maybe too much discretian left to the reviewer.

I really mean the idea for when I send in a brilliant illustration, technically perfect and not my fault the reviewer didn't understand the concept and rejected it. Harm done to my accceptance ratio and put's me off uploading certain pictures..

No more thought's for today it's fish and chips on a Friday here in England!

Olldhand the traditionalist

cathyslife · « **Reply #71 on:** July 16, 2010, 11:22 »

Quote from: Oldhand on July 16, 2010, 11:16

No more thought's for today it's fish and chips on a Friday here in England!

Yum! All the talk of big fish must have made you hungry!

Oldhand · « **Reply #72 on:** July 16, 2010, 11:41 »

Too right - I hope my wife didn't forget the scraps...

sharpshot · « **Reply #73 on:** July 16, 2010, 11:51 »

Quote from: Oldhand on July 16, 2010, 11:16

Actually I thought it had some mileage. Submit 5 from series, all pass QC, only keep two, no damage to accpetance ratio. I take your point though, maybe too much discretian left to the reviewer.

I really mean the idea for when I send in a brilliant illustration, technically perfect and not my fault the reviewer didn't understand the concept and rejected it. Harm done to my accceptance ratio and put's me off uploading certain pictures..

No more thought's for today it's fish and chips on a Friday here in England!

Olldhand the traditionalist

I was referring to the current DT policy of rejecting anything that is slightly similar in a series or anything that is similar to images they already have. Your idea might help but is only patching up the problem. I still think they should be far more lenient with reviews and give the buyers more choice.

Eireann · « **Reply #74 on:** July 16, 2010, 12:55 »

Hi Lisa,
but you *are* a big fish, of course you are!
Let me tell you a short story to cheer you up a bit.
Real life, it happened 2 days ago. It's not an isolated example, the same thing happens virtually all the time.
It's about your images vs Yuri's.
To cut a long story short - we've got a new customer. Late evening college, adult education, opening in September. They want to set up a web site.
For their home page they are looking for a few images of, quote 'happy, smiling, mature students'.
This is how their lightbox looks like : Monekybusiness, Yuri and you.
And the winner is ...
... Lisa Fx!

Reason for rejecting Yuri's images, quote, mot a mot - 'Beautiful photos but the people don't look real and their teeth are too white'
In the end your classroom series was the winner, congratulations!
See? You're a bigger fish than the big fish

But of course, by now, almost all my customers know your story - lovely American photographer, this is her husband, this is her daughter. Hard working family, real people, please help funding expensive college fees for a very smart young lady

Having such a beautiful portfolio certainly helps

As a side note, possibly for a future project - more women students in your classroom?

Back on topic - I like Dreamstime and I'm really happy Yuri is back. It is very important to have him there, this is good news.
I hope this 'too many similars' policy gets a review soon. For Yuri, Lisa and all of you.
The more beautiful, commercial images on Dreamstime, the more buyers and the more chances I have to sell one of mine.
Hopefully they'll reconsider.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Stock "factories" slowing uploads? (Read 38946 times)

Artemis

sharpshot

click_click

Dook

Randy McKown

zimmytws

Randy McKown

WarrenPrice

zimmytws

Kone

lisafx

FD

FD

sharpshot

cathyslife

Kone

lisafx

cathyslife

Oldhand

sharpshot

Oldhand

cathyslife

Oldhand

sharpshot

Eireann

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors