MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Uploading for Peas!  (Read 17115 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: August 10, 2008, 20:53 »
0
Why would a buyer go to these agencies unless they didn't know already the big ones. I would not. In the case that the buyers go to these new or small agencies, then what? I will receive the same amount of money from 15 different agencies and lost more time to upload to more agencies.

You know why a buyer would go to a new agency?  Because if it is an agency you believe in and you want to see survive, then they can only find your best stuff at that agency.  Because you promote that agency here and other places you go where you are respected.

That is how a new agency these days survives.

But, as I mentioned previously, most contributors are sheep.  They see dollars now on the big agencies and they want those few dollars and are unwilling to sacrifice that for even more dollars in the future.

In another post, someone railed about how the stock industry is growing but contributor sales and pay is diminishing.  Thats because contributors let it happen.  They allowed sites to offer subscriptions.  They post their best work on sites that pay low commissions. They have NO VISION of the future, they just react and bitch rather than doing anything to shape the future into something better.


ironarrow

« Reply #26 on: August 10, 2008, 21:18 »
0
Why would a buyer go to these agencies unless they didn't know already the big ones. I would not. In the case that the buyers go to these new or small agencies, then what? I will receive the same amount of money from 15 different agencies and lost more time to upload to more agencies.

In the last 5 years or more the micros standards have been established, and now all the big ones offer around the same options for buyers

Unless micros receive 50% more buyers and more, there's no reason for having more agencies to upload to.

So, you are happy with the low payouts and the poor treatment by SS, IS, StockXpert, DT and the other big sites?  You have no problem with them changing the rules and constantly doing things that make it harder for all contributors to make a living?

Do you believe they will change ANYTHING in our favor unless they are forced to either by a massive contributor boycott (very difficult to arrange) or by the action of a competitor?

The only reason to support any of the new sites that pop up is because they do something which you firmly believe in.  They treat you better, they offer you more, they genuinely are helpful.  If a new site is offering the same old thing, low commissions, high payout floors, etc... then I agree 400%, don't support it.

I was never on LO, but I have heard TONS of good things from many of the contributors there.  And going back through the archives here I see they genuinely tried to WORK WITH the photographer/illustrator community.  I'm sad to see them go without having had a chance to be a part of it.  But it isn't ALL their fault for failing.  A good part of the fault is with those contributors who were a part of it.  They were complacent in its failure and contributed to it.  How?  By selling out their principles.

The vast majority of posters on this board, from what I have read, would rather get paid then stand up for their principles.  They allow sites to walk all over them because they derive a large amount of income from those sites.  The "big 6" know they can do almost whatever they please as long as you keep getting your payments.  Oh sure, you''ll bitch and moan about it for a little while, but that's as far as it goes (for the most part, I know that the whole Photos.com got better when there was a mass uproar, but a LOT of contributors with HUGE portfolios sat on the sidelines and did nothing).

Of course, I see things differently than a lot of people.  I don't do this for a living, I average $200 a month ($450 in June was my biggest month ever).  The money I make from stock goes towards movie tickets, bowling nights with the family, occasional hardware upgrades for my computer, etc...  Sure I'm doing everything I can to increase what I make, but I don't count on it to pay my bills.  So I can afford to keep my principles and NOT participate on sites with whose policies I disagree.

What I have learned is that every little bit adds up.  $25 from this site, $50 from that site, etc...  So the more places I am the more all those little amounts add up to larger amounts.

And with automation (pre tagging all my images and footage), it's not a huge amount of effort to upload to most sites.  On 90% of the sites I contribute to the only thing I have to do after submitting an image is select the categories and press submit.  Everything else is filled in by IPTC data.  So uploading to Cutcaster along with the few other sites I contribute to literally adds 15 to 20 seconds per photo to my session.  That's really a waste of time?

Obviously we disagree.  And I would say to others, you have to make the decision yourself.  If you have a significant presence on the "big 6", adding the newer smaller sites is probably not in your best interest in most cases.  You have to evaluate each individually based on its own merits.  I don't believe they can all be lumped together as "losers" just because they're new. 

YES, most will fail.  But if you find one of the new sites that you like because of how they do business, then support them.  Help them to not fail.  Be a part of shaping the direction this industry is moving in and don't just be another sheep allowing the big names to herd you in whatever direction they want.

Just my two cents.

Seriously, I love the way you put your thoughts through.. And some of your thoughts too.. It is great.. Of course do not be a sheep.. I couldn't have agreed more..

But I really don't see any new sites making it.. The industry is almost shaped.. So even if I like the site and it is great to us contributors, if I don't see it "really up & coming" I can't give my time.. I see some premise in Snapvillage and I am closely watching but still, it is really difficult..

I really liked the idea of a vector only site in vectorstock but as soon as I saw their terms & conditions I almost threw up.. They are a bunch of idiots who think they have a great idea but does NOT understand the value of vectors.. They give them away for $1 and what is even worse they pay the worst ever commission in "modern era" of stock photography.. At first I was gonna support them because of the idea but the way they approach vectors and the contributors just makes me wanna find whereever their base is and burn it..

So I do watch sites, and sincerely am open to some interesting ideas but really don't see one coming.. As I mentioned above: may be Snapvillage because of "Corbis".. and that is it..

I think principles should come into terms now.. When StockXpert goes all weird..

My principles stood now, and no matter how much I make there I opted-out from subs, and if they make it impossible to opt-out I will just leave them in their hell.. Everybody should stand strong now.. All of us..

I think this website(MSG) and similar forces should grow and we should built a stronger community.. Believe me, my dream for us is to create a real strong community of photographers & artists..  A force that will be in the decision making process of all the sites..

I will do all I can.. But I don't see supporting new sites is the solution.. At least at the moment we know who we are dealing with.. We don't need new surprises born each month..
« Last Edit: August 10, 2008, 21:26 by ironarrow »

« Reply #27 on: August 10, 2008, 21:22 »
0
"...hard work is what really pays off..."

"Be a part of shaping the direction this industry is moving in and don't just be another sheep allowing the big names to herd you in whatever direction they want."

Mate - I respect your views, but this is an awfully naive approach.
The fact is that hard work does not pay off - not in the long run.  You pay for working hard with your health, both mental and physical, and with other things - like family time, rest, vacations - you name it.

And you make someone else rich in the process. Every bit of money you earn is just a small portion of what you really earn.  Do not believe me ?  Before even you are paid, there is payroll tax, then superannuation contribution (taxed again, and from the remainder you pay fees, and cover the losses your super fund incurred by playing fast and loose). Then there is personal tax, then GST/VAT, then levies, duties, fees, excise, etc. etc.  Not too dissimiliar from getting 20% of the monies earned by each download.

Yep, hard work pays off LOL.

Regarding the big names ? Big names always did what they wanted, and always will. We are all slowly being turned into a society of slaves, pity that most people does not even notice.  I would write some more on the subject - but I gotta run to take some pics... ::)

ironarrow

« Reply #28 on: August 10, 2008, 21:41 »
0
"...hard work is what really pays off..."

"Be a part of shaping the direction this industry is moving in and don't just be another sheep allowing the big names to herd you in whatever direction they want."

Mate - I respect your views, but this is an awfully naive approach.
The fact is that hard work does not pay off - not in the long run.  You pay for working hard with your health, both mental and physical, and with other things - like family time, rest, vacations - you name it.

And you make someone else rich in the process. Every bit of money you earn is just a small portion of what you really earn.  Do not believe me ?  Before even you are paid, there is payroll tax, then superannuation contribution (taxed again, and from the remainder you pay fees, and cover the losses your super fund incurred by playing fast and loose). Then there is personal tax, then GST/VAT, then levies, duties, fees, excise, etc. etc.  Not too dissimiliar from getting 20% of the monies earned by each download.

Yep, hard work pays off LOL.

Regarding the big names ? Big names always did what they wanted, and always will. We are all slowly being turned into a society of slaves, pity that most people does not even notice.  I would write some more on the subject - but I gotta run to take some pics... ::)

You made some awsome points my friend..

Let's say you are working at a graphic design company.. And let's say you are unbelievably creative and you carry the projects of the company.. You are simply great.. Without you they have no creativity.. And let's say the company makes $20000 a week.. All because of your great contribution and artistic talent.. And how much do they pay you??? %50 of the company profit?!! Nope.. I doubt it's even gonna be %5..

So %25 from stock is not that bad.. Of course let's try to make it better.. Let's show them who is the boss  :D

But that is not gonna happen by wasting our time in front of cutcaster..
« Last Edit: August 10, 2008, 21:43 by ironarrow »

« Reply #29 on: August 10, 2008, 21:45 »
0
Mate - I respect your views, but this is an awfully naive approach.
The fact is that hard work does not pay off - not in the long run.  You pay for working hard with your health, both mental and physical, and with other things - like family time, rest, vacations - you name it.

So doing nothing is a better alternative?  I fail to understand that approach, perhaps you can teach me its merits.... :)

« Reply #30 on: August 10, 2008, 21:47 »
0
"...hard work is what really pays off..."

"Be a part of shaping the direction this industry is moving in and don't just be another sheep allowing the big names to herd you in whatever direction they want."

Mate - I respect your views, but this is an awfully naive approach.
The fact is that hard work does not pay off - not in the long run.  You pay for working hard with your health, both mental and physical, and with other things - like family time, rest, vacations - you name it.

And you make someone else rich in the process. Every bit of money you earn is just a small portion of what you really earn.  Do not believe me ?  Before even you are paid, there is payroll tax, then superannuation contribution (taxed again, and from the remainder you pay fees, and cover the losses your super fund incurred by playing fast and loose). Then there is personal tax, then GST/VAT, then levies, duties, fees, excise, etc. etc.  Not too dissimiliar from getting 20% of the monies earned by each download.

Yep, hard work pays off LOL.

Regarding the big names ? Big names always did what they wanted, and always will. We are all slowly being turned into a society of slaves, pity that most people does not even notice.  I would write some more on the subject - but I gotta run to take some pics... ::)


I think that it's better to say that hard work "rarely" pays off. If you manage to work your way to the top, then you'll be making a lot of money. Of course, you will usually have to make serious sacrifices to get there. For some people, it seems to be worth it. And for others, it doesn't. At least with stock imagery, it's a form of passive income. That's one of the main reasons why I enjoy it so much. And of course, I obviously enjoy creating photographic works and illustrations as well (other main reason).

« Reply #31 on: August 10, 2008, 21:58 »
0
Let's say you are working at a graphic design company.. And let's say you are unbelievably creative and you carry the projects of the company.. You are simply great.. Without you they have no creativity.. And let's say the company makes $20000 a week.. All because of your great contribution and artistic talent.. And how much do they pay you??? %50 of the company profit?!! Nope.. I doubt it's even gonna be %5..

So %25 from stock is not that bad.. Of course let's try to make it better.. Let's show them who is the boss  :D

But that is not gonna happen by wasting our time in front of cutcaster..

LOL!  So, anybody who has a job working for someone else is a loser?

I see the basic premise of where you are coming from...  I worked as a programmer for a small software company for 9 years.  I created all 5 of their top selling programs which grossed an average of $6 million a year and I was paid a measly $150k a year in base salary plus another $80k in bonuses...  Definitely a small part of the pie considering the owner of the company pocketed close to $700k a year off the software I created.  But then, I didn't have any of the liability.  I wasn't responsible for anything other than my direct job of programming.

When I finally left the company and started my own business I discovered what true stress was...  Being responsible for the payroll of employees, having to do not only programming but marketing, sales and dealing with all the bills.  Only to see it all gone in an instant when Hurricane Charley destroyed everything.

If I wanted to, I could rebuild and get my business back to what it was and beyond, but no thanks.  I'm done with that.  I'm very happy creating software for someone else, getting paid a steady salary and having the time to mess with things like stock images and footage, while still having time to spend with my family.

In any case... We'll just have to agree to disagree.  I feel that personally, CC is a good investment in my time.  It's *maybe* 5 minutes out of my day to submit photos to them along with the other sites I contribute to.  And I'm betting they will make it and be good for the industry.  And if I'm wrong, and they don't make it, I lost 5 minutes a day.  But at least I tried.

ps.  And yes, "naive" is probably a very good word for me... I fully admit to my naivety about this industry.  But I'm learning and I'm enjoying myself.

ironarrow

« Reply #32 on: August 10, 2008, 22:13 »
0
Let's say you are working at a graphic design company.. And let's say you are unbelievably creative and you carry the projects of the company.. You are simply great.. Without you they have no creativity.. And let's say the company makes $20000 a week.. All because of your great contribution and artistic talent.. And how much do they pay you??? %50 of the company profit?!! Nope.. I doubt it's even gonna be %5..

So %25 from stock is not that bad.. Of course let's try to make it better.. Let's show them who is the boss  :D

But that is not gonna happen by wasting our time in front of cutcaster..

LOL!  So, anybody who has a job working for someone else is a loser?

I see the basic premise of where you are coming from...  I worked as a programmer for a small software company for 9 years.  I created all 5 of their top selling programs which grossed an average of $6 million a year and I was paid a measly $150k a year in base salary plus another $80k in bonuses...  Definitely a small part of the pie considering the owner of the company pocketed close to $700k a year off the software I created.  But then, I didn't have any of the liability.  I wasn't responsible for anything other than my direct job of programming.

When I finally left the company and started my own business I discovered what true stress was...  Being responsible for the payroll of employees, having to do not only programming but marketing, sales and dealing with all the bills.  Only to see it all gone in an instant when Hurricane Charley destroyed everything.

If I wanted to, I could rebuild and get my business back to what it was and beyond, but no thanks.  I'm done with that.  I'm very happy creating software for someone else, getting paid a steady salary and having the time to mess with things like stock images and footage, while still having time to spend with my family.

In any case... We'll just have to agree to disagree.  I feel that personally, CC is a good investment in my time.  It's *maybe* 5 minutes out of my day to submit photos to them along with the other sites I contribute to.  And I'm betting they will make it and be good for the industry.  And if I'm wrong, and they don't make it, I lost 5 minutes a day.  But at least I tried.

ps.  And yes, "naive" is probably a very good word for me... I fully admit to my naivety about this industry.  But I'm learning and I'm enjoying myself.

At least we agree on disagreeing ;D

Good luck! I do hope it works out well..

But think about it: stock photography is %0 stress and %20 to %50 reasonable commissions..

IS is %20 But if you are an exclusive you can make much more.. So it is up to you.. They are not that bad and I understand why a non-exclusive image gets less commission.. Because it is not that special!!!

I gotta go for now.. It was fun to talk.. Although we disagree, it was a high IQ conversation..

Thanks..

RacePhoto

« Reply #33 on: August 11, 2008, 01:18 »
0

Can someone give me any clever reason for uploading for pea(nut)s?

Not clever but, hope, belief, optimism, ambition, confidence.

I'll quote my Uncle Ed for why I don't. "I'd rather sit for nothing than work for nothing."  :D

« Reply #34 on: August 11, 2008, 05:03 »
0
Lucky Oliver was a disappointment but I still made money with them and it took very little time to upload my portfolio there.  It was a risk that didn't work out as well as I hoped but people that make the most money take risks and some of them pay off well.  Look at the top microstock earners and they seem to have their portfolios on every site that will take them.  Are they working for peas?  They make much more than the people who stick with the top few sites.

I missed out on the early years of the big sites and I wish I was contributing to them from the start.  Look at the diamond list on istock and I am sure some of them are there only because they have been with the site from the early days.  Buyers see they have done well and seem to prefer buying their work than new contributors that might have superior images.

It seems logical to just join sites that are doing well now but I think there is an advantage getting in early.  Obviously there are a lot of new sites that are not worth spending time on but I am sure there will be some that take over from the current top 6 sites and this time I am not going to wish I joined them earlier.

« Reply #35 on: August 11, 2008, 05:50 »
0
There needs to be a balance. Just accept it!!! The market wouldnt survive without any of the sides.  Its like heaven and hell...

Well, the good side could have a little more belivers if I got to decide.  wich side is the good?  ???

RacePhoto

« Reply #36 on: August 11, 2008, 11:33 »
0

Buyers see they have done well and seem to prefer buying their work than new contributors that might have superior images.

It seems logical to just join sites that are doing well now but I think there is an advantage getting in early. 

Do buyers look for specific images they need or do they search by photographers? What you are saying doesn't make sense about not buying from new contributors. Do you think people would buy from someone established, over a "superior" image?

I think you are right, across the board. People who got in early have higher sales, over a longer period of time and should come up higher on the searches if the site uses views and sales for ranking.

I still don't think that every new upstart is worth the time and effort to upload photos and dilute ones distribution. Sites are closing and the weeding out of micros that aren't viable is in progress. It happens in any business market or industry.

Use auto makers as a good example. There were many, some made it into public production. Slowly they dropped out or were absorbed until there are about ten in the world, selling to the broad consumer market.

Maybe you remember the early days of personal computers. It's pretty much down to two operating systems, two processor makers, and a limited number of brands. Of course we can all just go buy parts and make our own White Box computer now, except if you want a Mac.   ;)

Micro is the consumer market of photography. Breaking in with the powerhouse agencies isn't impossible, but it's much more difficult than every and getting harder as the majors provide a broader choice.

I might add that new agencies are "me too" with mostly the same photos as the big ones. Everyone with a big portfolio, who does what you suggest, takes the same photos and puts them up on ever micro that comes around the corner.

What is compelling to a buyer to go to the new small agency, over the older established agency, when both have the same photos, from the same photographers and old agencies have a bigger selection?

« Reply #37 on: August 11, 2008, 16:32 »
0
I think that some buyers find a site and if they can find what they are looking for, they stick with it.  There must be new buyers finding sites all the time.  If there wasn't, I am sure my sales would be going down, as there are new contributors joining all the time.

And I don't see this as being like the choice of operating systems.  Perhaps it is closer to buying music.  How many sites sell music?

« Reply #38 on: August 11, 2008, 17:27 »
0
I guess new buyers will choose agency which comes on a top of Google search page :-)

Unless Google Images provides search options similar to specialized stock search sites like http://www.imagetrail.net/search.php I do not believe searching across agencies would be possible.

« Reply #39 on: August 11, 2008, 18:11 »
0
you have write a lot!! in this post

i read some and in my point of view is something like that...

phase 1

Upload to new sites since they give better prices than the existing sites

(about prices low high etc in that case the cheaper sites should have downloads ONLY but  as we can all see the price is not that big issue if it was all that Mid stock and Macro wouldn't exist)

phase 2

Get rid from sites with small fees like crestok - canstock etc 

if photographers go from sites with small fees this crap "30 cent a photo will stop" as long as we feed the beast the beast is going to alive a well


« Reply #40 on: August 11, 2008, 18:55 »
0
Individual contributors do not matter any more. How much do we all, members of this forum, own? 1% of the market, probably less. If we got abducted by aliens tomorrow there hundreds of newcomers waiting to take out places :-) Point'n'shot cameras are now 12 mpix :-)

Yes, go to sites that "pay" more. More of nothing, since they have no traffic, is still nothing.

Sooner or later this market will start consolidating and subs will be 15 cents. I guess we all will be dreaming about old good days when we got 25 :-)

RT


« Reply #41 on: August 11, 2008, 19:13 »
0
If we got abducted by aliens tomorrow there hundreds of newcomers waiting to take out places :-) Point'n'shot cameras are now 12 mpix :-)

A bit of topic but why do so many people write this type of statement?

As far as I'm aware no microstock site limits it's numbers of contributors, so why do people think there are hundreds of people waiting to take our places, why don't these hundreds of people just upload now, it's not a one out one in system you know!

Also taking a logical point of view, it takes years to build up a good sized portfolio, so if some of the individual big names left, the sites in question would be definately be effected by it. Unless of course these hundreds of people waiting to get in also each have a portfolio of 5000 good selling images!!










« Reply #42 on: August 11, 2008, 19:26 »
0
I just wonder if top 10 bestselling contributors magically disappear from they site. Would not next 10 best become top 10 and fill the gap instantaneously? At the same time somewhere at the very bottom of this stack 10 newbies would fit into this pyramid. And the balance would not change at all :-) I guess one person with 5000 great photos is no difference that 1000 people with 5 great photos :-)

« Reply #43 on: August 12, 2008, 02:45 »
0
...Sooner or later this market will start consolidating and subs will be 15 cents. I guess we all will be dreaming about old good days when we got 25 :-)

This is the opposite of what is happening.  Subs prices have gone up substantially every year.  When FT tried to undercut the other sites, they had a contributor revolt and had to raise their commissions twice.

« Reply #44 on: August 12, 2008, 05:59 »
0
I have an idea :)

Lets organize all contributors, and leave all sites that pay us less than 5$ per image :) Oh, it would be so nice if we all could stand up all together for this one :) They can't live without us more than few months.... :)
We have that power, that's obvious. Too bad we are not in this level of organization.
Few months without contributors, and all sites, including big 6 would beg us on their knees for us to come back offering much more money to us :)

I know, I know.... let me dream few minutes more and then I will wake up....
« Last Edit: August 12, 2008, 06:05 by whitechild »

Bettyboop

    This user is banned.
« Reply #45 on: August 12, 2008, 09:02 »
0
If we got abducted by aliens tomorrow there hundreds of newcomers waiting to take out places :-) Point'n'shot cameras are now 12 mpix :-)

A bit of topic but why do so many people write this type of statement?

As far as I'm aware no microstock site limits it's numbers of contributors, so why do people think there are hundreds of people waiting to take our places, why don't these hundreds of people just upload now, it's not a one out one in system you know!

Also taking a logical point of view, it takes years to build up a good sized portfolio, so if some of the individual big names left, the sites in question would be definately be effected by it. Unless of course these hundreds of people waiting to get in also each have a portfolio of 5000 good selling images!!




ANotheR big reality check from RT. You just can't help doin that everytime can you ;)

« Reply #46 on: August 12, 2008, 13:25 »
0
Of course, I see things differently than a lot of people.  I don't do this for a living, I average $200 a month ($450 in June was my biggest month ever).  The money I make from stock goes towards movie tickets, bowling nights with the family, occasional hardware upgrades for my computer, etc...  Sure I'm doing everything I can to increase what I make, but I don't count on it to pay my bills.  So I can afford to keep my principles and NOT participate on sites with whose policies I disagree.

What I have learned is that every little bit adds up.  $25 from this site, $50 from that site, etc...  So the more places I am the more all those little amounts add up to larger amounts.

For those of us who do earn their living from stock photography, uploading to new sites is a waste of time.  I pulled my portfolio from FeaturePics after discovering it would take me at least another eight years at the current sales rate to earn enough money to cover the time I'd already spent just finishing the upload process.  That time didn't include the time I spent shooting, processing and uploading my images, nor did the earnings take into account my business expenses (computers, camera gear, car and gas, etc.).  I made my calculations using the bare minimum amount of time and money I expect to earn. 

Eight years. 

That's a long time to recoup a measly $250.  It took almost two years just to reach my first $50 payout. 

I would love nothing more than to earn enough money to where I could choose agencies based on principle, but principles don't put food on my table.  Agencies with decent sales volume do.     

« Reply #47 on: August 12, 2008, 13:51 »
0
I am on the same boat with Karimala. I am not doing this for living so every penny makes me happy. I've just started 34 months ago and this month received first payout from SS. If I can finance my future photo upgrades from money earned on microstock I would be satisfied. I also try many site before I can finally decide which are most productive for me. Since it seems like nowadays most for the my downloads comes from subscriptions I need to build larger portfolio than people who started 2-3 years ago. Also I am not shooting specifically for stock. I shoot what I like and upload to as many sites I can. They can select what they like.  I stop wondering why I could sell almost 1800 photos on SS and got only 49 accepted on IStock. I let them to decide what they want.

johngriffin

« Reply #48 on: August 12, 2008, 15:14 »
0
Great stuff to read and learn. 

I understand the different sides of the argument better now and thanks for the criticism and defense of Cutcaster.  No need for people to get into any big disagreements as we all have our different experiences.

Cutcaster is not perfect and we are young.  That is true. We also can't be everything to everyone even though it would be nice.  But we can only really succeed with contributors from this forum's help and others who decide to put possibly a small amount of their portfolio on our site to test it out and let us work for them once they sign on.  It's an alternative to selling your content for peas or peanuts which I totally hear you on.  Take some content you don't have on other sites and price it out on Cutcaster for what you think it is worth.  Buyers will buy it on demand or will bid on it so you have the chance to know if you could be getting more than 30c an EL.  I know some people have been getting bids and advertisers and graphic designers have been emailing me that they like the idea and want to try it out more.   

Let me work for you.

Just a few clarifications.  I will not do a subscription model.  It COMPLETELY contradicts what I am trying to build.  And trust me I have looked at the economics of it inside and out and I will not sell out Cutcaster like that for either the selling or buying side. 

If there are changes we want to make, I ask the community first either on my blog or our new forums or someone asks me to change something and I listen because I understand that I am nothing without contributors who I want to work with us.  Zilch.  Zero.  You guys have the power to make and break sites and it is even more so in the early stages of a site.  We can work all day long to get buyers but we need great content.  Its the old chicken vs. the egg issue in the marketplace setting. 

interesting stuff nonetheless and thanks for helping me understand the issues better.

« Reply #49 on: August 12, 2008, 16:08 »
0
The one thing I can agree with is the fact that new agencies can only compete by attracting contributors. The only way to do that is to provide better experience for photographers. I guess that was the reason everybody jumped on YAY wagon. Fantastic workflow for contributors. It true that if you are already working with 5-6 agencies you would consider new one only if there is an easy way to migrate your portfolios. Today I started uploading to MostPhotos. I run ftp script over night and with few clicks later I got couple hundred pictures online. I guess I stop uploading to CS, BigStock, they put too many restrictions on contributors and payout is microscopic ;-)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
5376 Views
Last post March 25, 2006, 05:23
by chellyar
No uploading for four days

Started by Greg Boiarsky iStockPhoto.com

9 Replies
4887 Views
Last post September 17, 2006, 21:08
by amanda1863
5 Replies
4519 Views
Last post October 14, 2007, 12:37
by Peter
1 Replies
2967 Views
Last post January 19, 2008, 19:24
by dbvirago
10 Replies
3942 Views
Last post November 05, 2008, 12:25
by RH

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle