|
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 - FreedomFriesnBruisedEgos
1
« on: October 10, 2007, 06:44 »
Dear FreedomFries,
Walk into my office and act rude, and you'll be asked to leave. Some on here think because it's the internet you can be rude and expect a call-center response, sorry, it doesn't work that way with our business. We are not AOL and we don't want the business of unfriendly artists. If that's an issue for you, then simply move on to the next forum thread, is it so hard?
Yes, but it isnt your office, is it? Its an open forum for everyone, read by hundreds of potential customers/contributors. Youre not just responding to me- youre responding to everyone here. Regardless of whos right and wrong- most people here associate your site with the agressive face you put on it. A safe, AOL style response would be a good idea because it gives the facts without offending anyone. In this way, we would all learn to associate your site with bland, friendly professionalism, which is what will earn money. The fact that you cant take your aggression out of your official posts makes me think that you only have 1773 files because you spend your time insulting contributors. Which would you upload your hard work to- the site of an aggressive person who spends half the time fighting people in forums, or the site of a bland AOL style announcer who politely states facts?
2
« on: October 10, 2007, 06:15 »
Seriously, though, 1773 files is stunning. My portfolio is about half of theirs. I guess it just goes to show that sites like microstockgroup do make a difference. Has anyone here heard of them insulting contributors on other sites? Or was the original post a one-off?
3
« on: October 10, 2007, 05:11 »
I guess they resorted to the cheap beer.
4
« on: September 11, 2007, 10:47 »
Theres absolutely no need at all to remove all non exclusives- why not instead just openly push everything they do to the back of the search queue? This way, their stuff would be seen only when its the only choice.
5
« on: September 02, 2007, 06:51 »
^^ A good point from the man above. Most people spam unintentionally (or maybe intentionally). Often its a case of inexperience, or just trying too hard. Its not something to be kicked off a site for. Sure, istock could give you a warning, but to kick you off would be unfair. Well where to start? First, resorting to calling a person stupid hardly makes you look like a rational, intelligent person who is actually trying to debate (but your first posting took care of that). Second, there was no giggling. There was laughter at what was a rambling rant of a very pissed off person. Third, I don't think it is fair if Dreamstime is actually doing such things. Finally, how people write is typically indicative of their cognitive abilities. Since you hijacked a thread that was originally about keyword spammers, perhaps we could get back to that.
P.S. Don't worry about lowering yourself. I hope telling people to piss off and then calling other people stupid is pretty much the bottom.
The idea that I "hijacked a thread" is nonsense- I was perfectly on topic. This thread is as much about "keyword spammers" as it is about Dreamstime's treatment of their contributors. I was talking about this- until I was attacked by two people who found the kind of language I was using terribly amuzing. One thing you say may be true: "how people write is typically indicative of their cognitive abilities." But lets be clear about this- its not relevant to the debate, and neither was your original post. Youre concentrating on the person speaking (writing), and the way they speak (write) rather than the meaning. In other words, youre off topic. You do say "I don't think it is fair if Dreamstime is actually doing such things." which implies that you agree with the substance behind the words, so I dont really see what point youre making. There are a few posts somewhere on this site about Dreamstime spying on forums and making threats. Take a look if you havent already- youll see that its a lousy company.
6
« on: September 02, 2007, 02:39 »
I'm not listening to the way things are said, I am reading what is written.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what Im talking about. People with a limited intellectual capacity are fascinated by the way things are said, rather than the underlying meaning. What youve just given me is another example. It isnt that relevant how I speak (or if it makes it easier for you to picture, write). What is relevant is what is being said (edited to clarify:written). Unfortunately, you wont defeat any arguements by giggling like a schoolgirl at the combination of words. All it does is waste time and distract attention from the debate, and because every attack needs a defense, I find myself having to lower myself to the same kind of purile, childish banter to explain myself. So, lets get on with it, and dont bother mocking any spelling mistakes/grammatical errors I may have made above. As far as why you hate them:
1) All the agencies read what is written on other forums, or at least they should.
Its not simply a case of reading other forums. Dreamstime has, many times, read criticisms in forums like this one (forums that they dont run), and emailed the person in question to threaten them that if they criticize them again, they will be booted off their site. Do you think that this is fair?
7
« on: September 01, 2007, 04:27 »
Sure sounded like an attack to me! Maybe you guys should quit listening to the way things are said, and start listening for what is being said.
And in case you couldnt tell: What Im saying is, I very much dislike that company- and I think theyre the worst of the lot.
8
« on: August 31, 2007, 05:02 »
FFBE, would you please stop making posts that make me laugh - I've just been reading this thread over my morning coffee, and when I came across your 'screw you' announcement I spat the coffee all over my desk!
Any reason why it makes you laugh? Do me a favour- if you disagree with what I say- at least learn how to debate, and give me a reason. If you have a problem with my language- it isnt relevant at all.
9
« on: August 30, 2007, 10:17 »
I see the guys point. If the keywords are wrong, you send a warning, dont you? This is someone's living. We all sometimes put words which with hindsite werent necessary. At the most, the guy should have been given a week to fix his keywords. This is a typical example of dreamstime pushing their weight around.
This site acts in the way that we all hate- they treat us like a bunch of slaves, like theyre the big powerful corporation. They spy on forums that they dont run. They keep images for 6 months after we upload them. Sod them, I say. If they were as big as istock, theyd be a lot more hated. Fortunately for us, the other sites still understand that you have to at least act like you respect your contributors. Dreamstime dont. And Im sure theyre reading this post- so let me take this opportunity to say "screw you".
10
« on: August 11, 2007, 07:03 »
(3) hire someone with real knowledge of the industry you're in from one of the big boys (the big six to the right) or perhaps from your true competition Alamy. I know you don't consider yourself a "microstock" site, but you're selling royalty-free licenses so call it what you want but they are your competition.
(4) your content is not on par with your prices. This is the key think you should reconsider. Either lower the prices or recruit the best of the best from each site and have them contribute shots that are exclusive to your site. Otherwise your model is doomed to fail.
Id like to add to this. Things have got personal already (so lets move on)- but this has shown up some problems with the initial idea behind the site. Ive heard the owners of this site saying that "the microstock model isnt sustainable". Personally, I disagree- I just think that it isnt being sustained. Istock and the rest are raising prices because they are able to, as they have such high quality. They assume that people wont leave because of that quality. They could keep the system as it is and continue. One thing that Paul Melcher doesnt seem to understand is that selling images for a dollar- or less- is actually a perfectly viable idea. And most contributors do not contribute because we are amateurs-or money isnt important. We contribute because we sell every image many times over. This allows us to make a lot of money. It is, in fact, very lucrative. So, it is entirely sustainable. What youre doing, is selling at a very high cost- without first raising quality. No one who has heard of istock is going to go to you- even with their dodgy search engine. The only new customers will be people who move straight from buying from getty, onto your site, somehow hearing of you, but not istock. I dont think thats going to work. You have made the same mistake my father made "a dollar?! Oh come on, youll never make money selling things for a dollar! Its just a hobby..." This, I think, is why you dont show any respect for microstockers. You think we re all a bunch of amateurs who do this as a hobby. You think "Lets do the same as istock, but with REAL artists, not silly hobbyists." The problem, really, is that you dont understand the industry. I suspect neither of you have really contributed much to any sites, or worked for any of these sites. This is why your business will fail.
11
« on: August 09, 2007, 22:02 »
Do you see us as being "cheap beer", Keith? I think that most people who see that the "Chief Knowledge Officer" of a company has that little respect for what they do would be unlikely to give the company a much-needed lifeline by contributing. The man has said very little here- and has already called microstockers "cheap beer" and "serfs". It shows not only a lack of respect for what we do, but also a lack of understanding.
As was said before, this is pretty bad marketing. When a few dick heads in the forums with anonymous names like "freedom something something" wind you up you should ignore it and focus on what you want to do- get contributors and build a brand. All the other people who were silent during the conversation are now thinking "theres no way Im going to contribute there..."
I leant a lot from that exchange- and theres no way that I, as "cheap beer" or "a serf" that already makes over 100 dollars a day from this is going to put my hard work on a site which I do not, and will not trust. The kind of people who speak like that to contributors are just the kind of people who would reduce our cut the moment they have a million images. I recommend getting a new "Chief Knowledge Officer".
12
« on: August 08, 2007, 23:00 »
Hey Paul Melcher- since your site isnt microstock, and youre surprised that it was mentioned here, and youre (erm) clearly not friends with the guy who started this thread... How come you just happened to stumble upon this thread? Its only been up for a day or so... Bizarre coincidence, if you ask me.
13
« on: August 08, 2007, 09:02 »
besides, the best selling file has only sold twice. How could anyone (other than admin) possibly say that this is a better site to upload than any of the others to the right of the screen there?
14
« on: August 08, 2007, 08:51 »
Oh come on! Two completely new posters who both happen to speak in the same kind of German English- they both love this new site (which, I think most people who look at it would agree, is rather mediocre at best), and they both use language which is blatantly aimed at getting us to go there as quickly as possible.
Read your posts again- youll see that you tried too hard. People just dont talk like this about new sites- theres nother special or new about yours- its just a rehashed version of istock with a few new rules. I dont have any issues with that- but lets not lie about it in order to trick people into going. There are no "big new ideas" which youve come up with that havent been done before.
Ill tell you what- if either of you new boy(s) can show me a personal website, or a site which has your work on it, then Ill take it back. Even your portfolio on this new site might convince me. Can I see your work, either of you? Or are you just admin from this tacky, hyped site which cant even afford real advertisements?
15
« on: August 08, 2007, 00:32 »
This is so funny- all the owners of new sites come to this forum to pimp them- but pretend to be happy customers! Goone4, and gustyx are so blatantly the same person! Well done you "two", from now on you will be known as "the twins who run Zoonar". To be fair, your pimping was a tiny bit more sophisticated that this guy pimping Zymmetrical, but not by much: http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=2040.msg18784;topicseen#newI dont get it- why arent you just honest about who you are? If you said "hey guys, we just set up a new site... Take a look" we'd all be interested and youd get a good hearing. Now, we just think youre liars out to con us. Im sure not going to trust you with my images, or indeed the money which youll theoretically bring to me with your site.
16
« on: August 07, 2007, 23:47 »
hahaha this is so blatantly a pimping thread!
17
« on: August 06, 2007, 04:03 »
Just a short update, Getty's stock plummeted 20% over the past week. It does not look like as if buying shares of Getty would be a good idea at the moment and in my opinion also in the future. Getty = macrostock mainly --> decline
Hehe its a good job I listened to you guys then! Thanks for the info.
18
« on: July 28, 2007, 23:31 »
A professional assotiation- I prefer that too. But, cmon, its a name! How would it be different from a union? Other than the socialism, corruption, and bearded old men?
Could we do more to stop agencies cutting our percentage if we were represented? Thanks for chiming in everyone.
19
« on: July 28, 2007, 08:39 »
The lack of formality is good for hobbyists, but a lot of people do this as a full time job. What if stock sites start cutting our percentages? If a site says "your cut will now be 10 percent" most contributors would grumble for a few days, and then learn to live with it. Theyre going to get bigger and bigger, and rely on individuals less and less. I dont know if we need one (actually, I have a natural revulsion to unions) But... I think itll be an interesting debate too.
20
« on: July 28, 2007, 04:11 »
Do we need one?
21
« on: July 24, 2007, 21:58 »
To say that we'll all just get bored one day or "wake up" to the sudden realization that someone else is getting rich off the sweat of our brow, resulting in a mass exodus from microstock, is completely absurd.
I agree- I found that bit hilarious! Its the typical communist idea "if only the masses would unite, we would escape from this terrible drudgery."
22
« on: July 24, 2007, 09:53 »
Interesting. But, I disagree with him a lot. 100 dollars a month?! I started doing this full time, because I can now live on it. My wage is very nice, and would be even if I didnt enjoy it, which I do. Im not crazy about the 20-40 percent that they give, but I wonder how much of the profits people make in other companies? With microstock, I can see exactly what Im getting, and its good money. With other businesses, I bet their percentage isnt much better, if they would only tell you.
Thanks for showing.
23
« on: July 16, 2007, 04:59 »
thats an interesting blog- thanks for that. Ill have to look at that again in the future.
24
« on: July 16, 2007, 04:46 »
I think its different also for illustrators- I have around 300 or so online, but I was serious enough to quit my job to do it (although it was a crap job). I think it depends more on the amount of time you spend. Some people put so much effort into a single shot that doing 1000 would take years.
25
« on: July 15, 2007, 23:00 »
Thanks everyone- that helps a lot. I think Ill take your advice and steer clear of Getty for now. Maybe Ill invest in something else with someone who knows what theyre doing. Thanks again!
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
