Author Topic: someone creates a "deadlist" for all Agencys please? (Read 4272 times)

Maximilian · « **on:** May 13, 2014, 19:23 »

Evil deeds get penalized.
We really need a deadlist for agencys. I dont think i will read all msg threads forever.
But would also be interested in things that happen in this business.
We have this problem at this moment.. some guys ask, why not everyone opt out at dpc.
Often the reason is, not everyone knows about whats going here.

Lets say each agency has 1,000,000 life-points. with 0 points each contributor can easily see that something is really going wrong there.

Depo sells our images at shotshop and other and pays only a subscription to us.
bääm -500,000 life points.

FT starts DPC, for 1$ ..
bääm -400,000 life points.
FT gives higher commission for each subscription sale +500 points (they dont get more points by me for that

)

..of course it's a gimmick. But would also be a nice overview of current events

Then, when a short sentence would still be related to the score than explaining it, it could even make every man his own image.

I would love this gimmick

stockastic · « **Reply #1 on:** May 13, 2014, 19:54 »

Funny idea. And I get your point. How would someone new, thinking about getting into microstock, possibly make sense of this craziness and decide who to submit too?

At this point in time, a lot of us who once thought they might be serious about have decided it's doomed, and given up. But what would a new guy think? It's not like he could buy "History of IStock" from Amazon.com.

I guess he'd just look at the royalties being offered, and at the sizes of the existing agency collections, and decide whether to give it a go, without any clear idea of whether it could ever pay off.

farbled · « **Reply #2 on:** May 13, 2014, 21:03 »

I'd love something similar to TripAdvisor. Contributors could rate the various aspects of an agency for an overall score (ie. commissions, ease of use, communication, etc, etc).

Goofy · « **Reply #3 on:** May 13, 2014, 21:14 »

Quote from: farbled on May 13, 2014, 21:03

I'd love something similar to TripAdvisor. Contributors could rate the various aspects of an agency for an overall score (ie. commissions, ease of use, communication, etc, etc).

much simpler than that- simply who pays the bills and who doesn't pay the bills. Thus I will start-

1. Shutterstock- pays the rent
2. iStock, Fotolia, Dreamstimes, 123RF- pays the food and utilities
3. Alamy, Deposit Photos, Envato, Pond 5 , Bigstock, Canstock, veer- pays for gas in my car plus insurance
4. Stockfresh, GL Stock, Pantermedia, Mostphotos, Crestock, Yay- pays for one single can of Coke

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #4 on:** May 21, 2014, 20:07 »

Quote from: farbled on May 13, 2014, 21:03

I'd love something similar to TripAdvisor. Contributors could rate the various aspects of an agency for an overall score (ie. commissions, ease of use, communication, etc, etc).

I like. Or Instead of dead list, negqative, so many, why not live list, where we should work. It will be shorter list.

takestock · « **Reply #5 on:** May 22, 2014, 14:31 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 13, 2014, 19:54

Funny idea. And I get your point. How would someone new, thinking about getting into microstock, possibly make sense of this craziness and decide who to submit too?

At this point in time, a lot of us who once thought they might be serious about have decided it's doomed, and given up. But what would a new guy think? It's not like he could buy "History of IStock" from Amazon.com.

I guess he'd just look at the royalties being offered, and at the sizes of the existing agency collections, and decide whether to give it a go, without any clear idea of whether it could ever pay off.

If I was advising anyone starting in Microstock, I would say look no further than the Top 4 and Middle tier. It may be difficult to get on board some of these but if you do it will be worth it. Like many others I suppose, I spent much time and wasted energy trying out startup sites which yielded nothing.
Some sites work better for some people, I think it depends on your style of work.

Goofy · « **Reply #6 on:** May 22, 2014, 14:43 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on May 21, 2014, 20:07

Quote from: farbled on May 13, 2014, 21:03
I'd love something similar to TripAdvisor. Contributors could rate the various aspects of an agency for an overall score (ie. commissions, ease of use, communication, etc, etc).

I like. Or Instead of dead list, negqative, so many, why not live list, where we should work. It will be shorter list.

I can do this in one word--

Shutterstock

cthoman · « **Reply #7 on:** May 22, 2014, 15:08 »

Quote from: takestock on May 22, 2014, 14:31

If I was advising anyone starting in Microstock, I would say look no further than the Top 4 and Middle tier. It may be difficult to get on board some of these but if you do it will be worth it. Like many others I suppose, I spent much time and wasted energy trying out startup sites which yielded nothing.
Some sites work better for some people, I think it depends on your style of work.

The big 4 aren't really the big 4 anymore. I've left some of these sites for a few years and recently put some images back up to put a little more money in my pocket. They hugely underperformed my expectations from what I used to make at them. I think people vastly underestimate the value of placement of their images from being established and propagating over the internet through several years.

The moral being that when you join a new site, don't compare it to a site you've been at for years and years because if you quit that site you've been at for years and started fresh the results may be very similar to the new site or maybe even worse.

EmberMike · « **Reply #8 on:** May 22, 2014, 20:44 »

Quote from: Goofy on May 22, 2014, 14:43

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on May 21, 2014, 20:07
I like. Or Instead of dead list, negqative, so many, why not live list, where we should work. It will be shorter list.

I can do this in one word--

Shutterstock

I feel like there is this constant inter-mingling of opposing logic here when it comes to the "best" agencies. Some people see "best" as "wherever I make the most money". Others (myself included) see "best" as "fair-trade with potential".

Shutterstock is a must-have agency, no doubt about it. It's pretty hard to make a go of it in this business if you're leaving Shutterstock off of your roster. But if this supposed "deadlist" is agencies that are constantly up to no good and should be boycotted, shouldn't the "live list" be agencies that do the most good and should be supported above all others in an effort to hopefully see them grow? I don't think this should be about the company that makes us the most money in total, but the company that does the most good in terms of fairness to contributors, fair pricing, fair royalties, all-around good service and ethical business practices.

I like Shutterstock, but I don't love them. With mostly subscription royalties and 30% (or less) of on-demand sales, there are quite a few companies I can think of that beat them in terms of what they offer.

Wouldn't we all be better off if a 50%-royalty company were in the Top Tier?

PixelBytes · « **Reply #9 on:** May 22, 2014, 22:58 »

Quote from: EmberMike on May 22, 2014, 20:44

I don't think this should be about the company that makes us the most money in total, but the company that does the most good in terms of fairness to contributors, fair pricing, fair royalties, all-around good service and ethical business practices.

I like Shutterstock, but I don't love them. With mostly subscription royalties and 30% (or less) of on-demand sales, there are quite a few companies I can think of that beat them in terms of what they offer.

Wouldn't we all be better off if a 50%-royalty company were in the Top Tier?

What you said makes sense, but how long would a 50% royalty company stay that way if they made it to the top tier? Didn't dreamstime and bigstock start off at 50%?

Will · « **Reply #10 on:** May 22, 2014, 23:44 »

Quote from: EmberMike on May 22, 2014, 20:44

I feel like there is this constant inter-mingling of opposing logic here when it comes to the "best" agencies. Some people see "best" as "wherever I make the most money". Others (myself included) see "best" as "fair-trade with potential".

Shutterstock is a must-have agency, no doubt about it. It's pretty hard to make a go of it in this business if you're leaving Shutterstock off of your roster. But if this supposed "deadlist" is agencies that are constantly up to no good and should be boycotted, shouldn't the "live list" be agencies that do the most good and should be supported above all others in an effort to hopefully see them grow? I don't think this should be about the company that makes us the most money in total, but the company that does the most good in terms of fairness to contributors, fair pricing, fair royalties, all-around good service and ethical business practices.

I like Shutterstock, but I don't love them. With mostly subscription royalties and 30% (or less) of on-demand sales, there are quite a few companies I can think of that beat them in terms of what they offer.

Wouldn't we all be better off if a 50%-royalty company were in the Top Tier?

I agree! If a dynamic rating system of agencies that offer "fair-trade with potential" was posted, it might encourage people to build their portfolios with those agencies to the point where they have the possibility to become competitive. And likewise, if the DPCs of the industry were rated at the bottom it would tend to discourage people from contributing to the downward spiral.

Yes, I get the need for aggressive marketing but they can't market files they don't have.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: someone creates a "deadlist" for all Agencys please? (Read 4272 times)

Maximilian

stockastic

farbled

Goofy

YadaYadaYada

takestock

Goofy

cthoman

EmberMike

PixelBytes

Will

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors