Author Topic: GL New iStock? We Should (Read 14488 times)

stockastic · « **Reply #75 on:** January 19, 2013, 16:45 »

Quote from: sharpshot on January 19, 2013, 03:39

It's not going to be any good swamping GL with new images unless they get lots more buyers.

But it's chicken and egg.

I already have all my stuff on GL and get a sale every now and then. If all you big fish jump into the pond, yes it might reduce my sales even further; on the other hand, if buyers start to hear about GL as a place that is getting a lot of images that have been pulled from IS, that could be good.

In the long run, we all need new outlets for our work or the future is bleak.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #76 on:** January 19, 2013, 16:50 »

Quote from: sharpshot on January 19, 2013, 03:39

It's not going to be any good swamping GL with new images unless they get lots more buyers. I'd love to see that happen but the usual way it happens is that we all see less downloads after a site gets a big influx of images. So I think former exclusives will soon be looking at adding more sites. Hopefully they will avoid the ones that are almost as bad as istock. Here's the ones I would use if I was starting from scratch and had a big portfolio.

Shutterstock and they should link it to Bigstockphoto
alamy
Dreamstime
Canstockphoto
Pond5
Veer
GLStockImages
YayMicro
Stockfresh
Cutcaster

There's a few others but I think these are essential for most non-exclusives. And have a search here for threads about Warmpicture.

putting FT and 123RF outside doesn't make much sense (at least for me)

believe DP got to a nice place too despite the high volume of subs and the all shady things people talk but I never understood really

sharpshot · « **Reply #77 on:** January 19, 2013, 17:08 »

How many commission cuts have we had with FT? They're communications are about as good as istock. I couldn't recommend them. I didn't like they way 123RF handled their commission cut. By the time they told us how many credits we needed, it was too late to do anything about it. How many will we need this year? I just don't like having a commission cut each year and it looks like that's their intention.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #78 on:** January 19, 2013, 17:23 »

Quote from: sharpshot on January 19, 2013, 17:08

How many commission cuts have we had with FT? They're communications are about as good as istock. I couldn't recommend them. I didn't like they way 123RF handled their commission cut. By the time they told us how many credits we needed, it was too late to do anything about it. How many will we need this year? I just don't like having a commission cut each year and it looks like that's their intention.

we could be here all day discussing this and it won't do much, we go with who we want and for as long as we desire...

I am not saying I don't agree with you but if we think like that pretty much we leave microstock, not only FT and 123RF but the all bunch perhaps all beside SS because most agencies paying fair don't make us happy as you know

pancaketom · « **Reply #79 on:** January 19, 2013, 22:47 »

I like GL, although my sales look more like a bell curve than a growth chart there. I have been quite impressed with Pond 5 images lately, but maybe that is because most of my images there are new. As long as the sites pay decent percent and aren't too much trouble to upload to and don't have insanely low prices I'd say they should be supported. Sites like IS and FT have a long history of shady deals, others like 123RF have a shorter history of this, but it isn't a good trend.

stockastic · « **Reply #80 on:** January 20, 2013, 16:56 »

I want to be involved with new or still-small agencies that -
1. Have reasonable prices and commissions.
2. Don't do goofy, shady or obnoxious things to alienate their contributors.
3. Make a sale now and then.

Let's make a list! Hmmm. So far my list contains only GL. I tried CC for quite a while but they fell down on #3. PD is out at #1.

What am I overlooking?

stocker2011 · « **Reply #81 on:** January 20, 2013, 17:34 »

As an 'alternative' to istockphoto I have got to be honest and say that i don't love the layout/appearance of GLstock. No offense to the owner but IMHO the site looks a little amateurish in comparison and I'm not sure it could attract all types of customers from one end of the spectrum to the other eg. corporates to personal blogger. However I fully appreciate their support for the contributor and they do look like a fully contributor orientated site.

To be honest, right now i don't think there is a solid alternative. My vote would be to create an entirely new contributor orientated site which borrows all the best elements from all stock media sites and should sell photos, vectors and videos.

Right now i would say spread your port around and in the mean time start getting ideas on paper.

Just my 2cents.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #82 on:** January 20, 2013, 19:18 »

Really? I think the look is clean and no nonsense.

jbryson · « **Reply #83 on:** January 20, 2013, 19:36 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 20, 2013, 19:18

Really? I think the look is clean and no nonsense.

I agree. And I like their design blog.

stocker2011 · « **Reply #84 on:** January 20, 2013, 19:54 »

wow, stick to photography guys

It looks very designer orientated, but could you see corporates using that site?

Above all sites my vote would go to canstockphoto

stockastic · « **Reply #85 on:** January 20, 2013, 20:26 »

Quote from: stocker2011 on January 20, 2013, 19:54

wow, stick to photography guys

It looks very designer orientated, but could you see corporates using that site?

I'm not getting this. People working for big corporations will only use web sites with some particular look and feel?

stocker2011 · « **Reply #86 on:** January 21, 2013, 08:55 »

I believe so yes. An ideal example of the perfect site would be istockphoto back in 2006, the design was clean (although a bit dated) the site was functional the search worked and above all prices were good for everyone, designers, corporates etc.

stockastic · « **Reply #87 on:** January 21, 2013, 10:19 »

Well web sites can always be changed, at least in superficial ways. Maybe GL's current look is appropriate for their current customer base. I actually like it, but of course it's a very subjective thing and people do react differently.

StockCube · « **Reply #88 on:** January 23, 2013, 09:19 »

I might think about signing up if they would change their name! Even GL hasn't got entirely rid of the old 'graphic leftovers' name, which just implied that they sell bits of rubbish nobody wants to me.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #89 on:** January 23, 2013, 19:59 »

Quote from: StockCube on January 23, 2013, 09:19

I might think about signing up if they would change their name! Even GL hasn't got entirely rid of the old 'graphic leftovers' name, which just implied that they sell bits of rubbish nobody wants to me.

If microstockers survived ~~Crap Hamlet~~ Snap Village, possibly the worst name ever for any photo agency, I'm sure GL Stock is manageable!

I only joined there last week and so am still in the process of uploading my portfolio. So far I've found the experience smooth and straightforward - this afternoon I also made my first sale. My take on a medium file is more than I get for many Large sales at IS - so the buyer pays less than 1/3 of the IS price and we both end up with a good deal.

I'm not naive about the difficulties of getting an agency going - look at Stockfresh and a host of other languishing sites - but decent prices for buyers (not dirt cheap, but decent) and reasonable returns for sellers seem like such a good idea. Funny no one thought of that before....oh, wait....

fritz · « **Reply #90 on:** January 23, 2013, 20:36 »

Sorry but being with them for more than 2 years my conclusion is that GL reviewers will be more successful selling tomatoes rather than inspecting images same as Veer. My approval rate on IS and SS is 3x higher than GL and Veer.
Just have a feeling that they don't know what kind of images want?

EmberMike · « **Reply #91 on:** January 23, 2013, 20:42 »

Quote from: stocker2011 on January 20, 2013, 17:34

As an 'alternative' to istockphoto I have got to be honest and say that i don't love the layout/appearance of GLstock. No offense to the owner but IMHO the site looks a little amateurish in comparison and I'm not sure it could attract all types of customers from one end of the spectrum to the other eg. corporates to personal blogger. However I fully appreciate their support for the contributor and they do look like a fully contributor orientated site...

Totally disagree. It's a great design, easy to navigate, no clutter, highlights the product well, it's al all around great design.

Far better than CanStock for sure.

Quote from: stocker2011 on January 20, 2013, 17:34

...To be honest, right now i don't think there is a solid alternative. My vote would be to create an entirely new contributor orientated site which borrows all the best elements from all stock media sites and should sell photos, vectors and videos...

That's great. Now we just need to find someone with a few million dollars sitting around looking to start something like this.

EmberMike · « **Reply #92 on:** January 23, 2013, 20:43 »

Quote from: jsnover on January 23, 2013, 19:59

If microstockers survived ~~Crap Hamlet~~ Snap Village, possibly the worst name ever for any photo agency, I'm sure GL Stock is manageable...

I still have a SnapVillage t-shirt. Not proud of it. I use it for painting.

Pixart · « **Reply #93 on:** January 23, 2013, 20:49 »

Guess I better get uploading. Got a sale notice and don't know if I've been approved a week with just the first 20 files.

stockastic · « **Reply #94 on:** January 23, 2013, 21:02 »

Well great. Now the pathetically few sales I'd been getting will dry up completely, as all you heavyweights show up, with your thousands of images.

Welcome aboard.

VB inc · « **Reply #95 on:** January 23, 2013, 21:17 »

Does the site have some sort of best match search system in place?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #96 on:** January 23, 2013, 21:53 »

Quote from: stockastic on January 23, 2013, 21:02

Well great. Now the pathetically few sales I'd been getting will dry up completely, as all you heavyweights show up, with your thousands of images.

Welcome aboard.

It's always possible that if enough variety of images arrives, more buyers will find the site useful and everyone will do better. This idea that we do better by keeping people out comes up a lot, but I think it's not a viable long-term strategy.

The big issue with the smaller sites is lack of buyers, not too many images

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #97 on:** January 24, 2013, 01:12 »

As I have only started distributing my images through different agencies last week, I can say that I like GL so far for several reasons:

- Easy submission process
- Personal and friendly support
- Choice of price level for contributor plus high royalty rate
- Interface clean and current (like 5 years ahead of Fotolia and iStock and 10 years ahead of Dreamstime, Deposit, Canstock)

If there are sales (and I had a first one already), I think GL will be on the top of my preferred agency list, along with Shutterstock.

I have no plans of keeping content from any agency but some are making it easy to supply and those will get future uploads first. Others are complicated, so they will have to wait until I take the time...

With regards to some comments in this thread: I submitted people images without problems; and I have a very high acceptance rate on my iStock-accepted files - actually not (or almost not) getting any rejections at all like I did on Deposit and Canstock makes me doubt about their seriousness on quality. I am totally fine with getting a few rejected because they don't fit into an agency - or because they just tell me "hey, if iStock approved these it was probably because the inspector had to go through 500 flower images before and was just happy to see something different".

Poncke · « **Reply #98 on:** January 24, 2013, 13:33 »

There is a few things I would like to see on GL, but I need to figure you what they were because I forgot. LOL. But Kelly is great and the uploading is easy. Just waiting for the first sale now.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: GL New iStock? We Should (Read 14488 times)

stockastic

luissantos84

sharpshot

luissantos84

pancaketom

stockastic

stocker2011

Sean Locke Photography

jbryson

stocker2011

stockastic

stocker2011

stockastic

StockCube

Jo Ann Snover

fritz

EmberMike

EmberMike

Pixart

stockastic

VB inc

Jo Ann Snover

MichaelJayFoto

Poncke

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors