|
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 - Nordlys
1
« on: October 01, 2010, 09:15 »
Interesting.
My sales are pretty consistant, apart form that foltlia gaining ground, probably because of my european content.
% of september:
SS: 25%
DT: 29%
FOT: 46%
year un til now:
IS: 5,9%
SS: 20,3%
DT: 21,4%
Alamy: 24,4%
FOT: 28%
Delleted everything on IS
New on CS, BS, CD and YAY - no sales there yet - still adding pics.
2
« on: September 30, 2010, 15:15 »
Alamy slger ogs - ind i mellem - scandinavian er ikke det mest efterspurgte, men det giver da lidt i ny og n...
3
« on: September 28, 2010, 14:28 »
I was happy when I found Isyndica about one month ago. Sad to see them close.
With a photo collection close to 3500 pics, som RM, some RF, is was er very nice way to keep track og which images was accepted where, earnings etc.
Only thing I was missing was earnings on the single pic.
Wll - sad to see them close - I found their pricing very resonable i view of what they offered.
To be of any walue to me, a replacement should offer just about the same possibilities to be of any interest.
4
« on: September 26, 2010, 08:39 »
I've been asked several time, if I would sell my entire folio, but it never went trough, as I set the prises according to my example above.
I was at the last time bid 20$ per image, and thats not enough
5
« on: September 26, 2010, 04:04 »
A protfolie should be priced according to the renevue it produces.
If your port for instance gives you a 2.000 USD annual renevue, it could be looked at as the yearly interest for the asset (the portfolio).
At a marked interest of for instance 4% the value of the portfolio should be 50.000 $
The above assuming, that the portfolio continues to produce a renevue.
If the renevues goes down - for instance to aging or depleation, the values also goes down.
6
« on: September 26, 2010, 02:49 »
135
7
« on: September 21, 2010, 10:22 »
Good luck - btw - it works - some of the biggest european companies within agricultural products and distribution are coop's. In Russian, a coop is a sovjet, I think. 
Why do they work in Europe? The agricultural ones certainly because they take (well paid) politicians in as board members and they have a monopolist and political agenda. They eradicated all competition from private companies and they dominate the market - while the politicians on their board form a powerful lobby to keep the EU subsidies up: 50% of the EU budget goes to farming subsidies, just crazy. Having a tax-exempt coop is a sweeter way to maintain collectivism than a communist coup. 
This has nothing to do with a photographers' coop of course, but don't mention the big monopolistic anti-free market agricultural coops in continental Europe as an example.
I also have to advise strongly against Denmark as the seat for such a coop, for purely monetary reasons. Denmark is a half-hearted member of the EU with many opt-outs, and very small country with its own currency, not the euro.
I assume the bookkeeping will have to be done in the Danish currency. What if the international markets decide the Danish currency would be a nice target to speculate against a la baisse? They tried it with the euro last May but they failed since the euro-zone has very deep pockets. Greece would have gone down the drains if it wasn't in the eurozone. What if a contributor asks payout and the Danish currency overnight dropped by 40%?
I think that luckely, you don't know much about Denmark.... Biggest problem with the Danish Krone against the euro, which it's tied to, is that the krone is too strong.... We have to keep lowering rates to keep it down.... Danish kroner is on of the most stable currencies in Europe... A better argument for not placing it in Denmark would be the tax on the payouts, and here I don't know about the exact rules.
8
« on: September 20, 2010, 15:57 »
Would it be possible that those who contributed money in the funding of the coop as well as those who join the funding in the future, receive a set amount according to the amount they contributed. Some contributors could not afford $1000. Some can afford more like $100. The amount of money you put it would determine the amount you would receive in bonuses at the year end. Just like stocks...the more stocks you own the more you make..the less you own the less you make. If any given contributor wants to contribute more money annually then they would receive a higher percentage based on the amount of capital they invest. As for the % they would receive per sale....I think that should be a set percentage straight across the board. I even think that it should be open to other contributors that don't have to pay. Those who don't pay get their regular commission, but wouldn't get bonuses at the year end. The option should be left open annually to contribute more for a higher rate of return or if they have not contributed, have the option to do so. A lot of math needs to be done to project the cost of advertising and marketing because that is where the expense needs to be. Don't know if it would work but that's my thoughts.
The it has nothing to do with a coop. The coop everybody is equal. You could put in more money, but it would not give you any extra money out or any more influence. A coop is a "one man" - "one vote" system. The coop is selvfunding through the money that comes from the submitter when they buy in, and through witholding a percentage of the commision for for instance 12 months.
9
« on: September 20, 2010, 15:17 »
Here is how a real coop work:
- xxx number of contributer join and form a coop, at a general assembly. Coop but me open to any contributer.
- the rules and laws of the coop are defines, and agreed upon at general assembly.
- They each come up with an equal amount of money, and so buy in to a qqual part of the coop (one one part pr. contributer)
- A group of representative are selected among the contributers.
- A board of director are selected among the contributers, by the board of representatives. All elections are by voting among all contributers.
- Manegement and staff are hired.
- coop i up and running
- Contributer gets for instance 60% royalty on sales
- 10% is let at coop for 12 months for funding.
Each year elections are held for: Board of representatives, which again selects the borad of directors. Board of directors hires and fires management.
Each year, theres a general assembly, at which among other things, the distribution of profit (if any) are desided. For instance if profit is good and money not needed for company delevopment, an amount of the coop profit can be payed out to the owners, porportional to how much money each contributers sales made the previous year.
Good luck - btw - it works - some of the biggest european companies within agricultural products and distribution are coop's.
10
« on: September 20, 2010, 09:56 »
I had some rejected for beeing unsharp, but I know they are not - but I wonder.....
I never add sharping to my images as this should allways be done by the end user, as it otherwise ruins the image.Doe's YAY expect us to sharpen images before submitting?
I wonder if the chek the images at 100% - bacause if one do so, it very easy to se whats sharpend and whats unsharps and whats not.
Hi Nordlys!
If you can send me a file or two, high-res, that got rejected I'll take a closer look - and have a talk with our approvers. ([email protected]) We do not demand that you sharpen the image first, and the approvers check images in 100%.
Cheers, Linda
Send you a e-mail 
11
« on: September 20, 2010, 00:59 »
Its even more fun when you add dreamstime instead of Fotolia:
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com+dreamstime.com/
Is it the crisis taking it's toll on photobuyers? Looks like a general trend? Shurely fits with my downloads - LOL - declining each year..... Did the buers stop buying or god elsewhere? The falling number at the Istocksecure might be contributers stopping to upload? Never mind - leave the Isuck place alone and consentrate on what matters more in life...
12
« on: September 20, 2010, 00:29 »
.
This graph showing traffic to secure.istockphoto.com should make you feel better
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/secure.istockphoto.com/
Unique Visitors Monthly Change Yearly Change
istockphoto.com 1,663,169 -3.47 % -19.48 %
secure.istockphoto.com 130,328 -32.83 % -64.69 %
Period
Wow - thats is a serious downturn - taken a hit not as much in browsing, but in contributers and buyers !!
13
« on: September 18, 2010, 16:49 »
^ Fair enough, I was just interested.
@dgilder: It's not complacency. I don't get this "battered spouse" analogy. It's business. They pay me money. If it's enough, I stay. If I feel I can get more elsewhere, I do that.
So you are just an other employe in the whorehouse ? How much to..... ? Sorry for the slezy analogy, but I really can't se the difference. They abused their contributers badly, and just just let them continue to do so for money? Have you contemplated applying for at position at the IS management - I belive you got the right kind of attitude....
14
« on: September 18, 2010, 11:04 »
I had some rejected for beeing unsharp, but I know they are not - but I wonder.....
I never add sharping to my images as this should allways be done by the end user, as it otherwise ruins the image.
Doe's YAY expect us to sharpen images before submitting?
I wonder if the chek the images at 100% - bacause if one do so, it very easy to se whats sharpend and whats unsharps and whats not.
15
« on: September 18, 2010, 11:01 »
One can not expect regular sales on alamy with an avarage portfolio, before there about 2500+ images online.
Remeber - you are compeeting against 20 million other iomages there.
If the portfolio is truly outstanding, sales might be regular before such high numbers.
And on Alamy - its "allways" the unexpected that gives you the sales....
Atleast thats how it is for me...
16
« on: September 18, 2010, 02:32 »
Agencies where all contributors are part-owners have already been tried and tested and with a misserable outcome of greed, jealousy and beefing about whom are to have the biggest shares.
Not a good idea. count me out please.
In a properly set up coop, everybody are paied the same. They the the agreed commision per picture sales. At the coop's general asembly it can be desided to payout profits to the owners each year, and this is payout in porportion to how much the contributer contributed of sales. Perfectly democratic and fair.
17
« on: September 18, 2010, 01:51 »
I really, really don't understand, why people continue to work with an agency treating them this bad.
I would rather starve or be begging n the strees (might actually pay more than IS), than work with IS after the latest changes.
18
« on: September 16, 2010, 03:55 »
19
« on: September 16, 2010, 03:54 »
OK - but I'll write something about it later, maybee in the weekend. A real COOP is VERY different from other types of companies, and theres plusses and minusis. Before discussing anything, one should be fully aware of what one's discusses Thus having a meaningfull discussion
20
« on: September 16, 2010, 02:55 »
In realation to a REAL coop your poll is meaningless, as you got to own a part of the coop to be able to deliver to the coop - otherwise it's not a coop. Better take a closer look on what a coop is - with your current lack of knowledge shown here about how a coop is set up and work, I would not trust you to start one
21
« on: September 16, 2010, 02:51 »
Change that investment to a 100 dollar, and I'm in....
1000 $ is too steep, and hasent anything to do with a coop - you compleately misunderstood the consept of a coop.
The coop concept is: one man - one vote - regarless the folie size or sales
To be able to deliver to a coop - you would have to join the coop/be a part of a coop finansially that is - own a part of the coop.
So it should not be possible to contribute to a coop agency, without having invested in it.
So the fee to be a coop member should be like 50 or 100 USD.
Also coop's traditionally finased the coop and investments, by witholding a small part of the members payment for a year, i.e. 5 or 10%. Those would then be payed out at the end of each year. This ensures the coop work capital.
If you are smart, you place the coop in denmark, whre coop's founded under the danish coop rules are taxfree.
22
« on: September 16, 2010, 02:17 »
Ha ha ha - Istock * up - Yet again - how funney to see - selfdestruction at open carpet - oh my oh my...
23
« on: September 15, 2010, 07:29 »
thanks for pointing me to this agency. As beeing based in denmark, I think I will join in with them.
24
« on: September 15, 2010, 06:10 »
and port is now deactivated.. just waiting on support to pay up and shut down my account.
Good move - same thing here!
25
« on: September 15, 2010, 00:39 »
I have 300 images on istock, how do I copy all the information and upload to other microstock site?
Ps what is IPTC tags? how do I use it? What software is it?
Take a look at Isyndia
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
