pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: In defense of the corporate pigs  (Read 17122 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

vonkara

« Reply #50 on: November 10, 2010, 10:21 »
0

I kept out of the iStock complaining threads since it serves no purpose and it takes time. Since iStock (and microstock in general in the limit) is "unsustainable" for me, I basically stopped uploading. Not as a "punishment" but since it makes no sense to buy props and spend hours in Photoshop working for 1$ per hour.


Finally, someone with common sense admit it. I see so many photographers uploading pages of new contents with 0 to 5 downloads by pages. I don't see how they do. Borrowing props to friend, begging friends to model? I stopped uploading as well for the same reasons. This way I don't work and still get couple of $ an hour  :)


jbarber873

« Reply #51 on: November 10, 2010, 10:25 »
0

I kept out of the iStock complaining threads since it serves no purpose and it takes time. Since iStock (and microstock in general in the limit) is "unsustainable" for me, I basically stopped uploading. Not as a "punishment" but since it makes no sense to buy props and spend hours in Photoshop working for 1$ per hour.


Finally, someone with common sense admit it. I see so many photographers uploading pages of new contents with 0 to 5 downloads by pages. I don't see how they do. Borrowing props to friend, begging friends to model? I stopped uploading as well for the same reasons. This way I don't work and still get couple of $ an hour  :)


     I like the part about not working. Is it sustainable?  :D

« Reply #52 on: November 10, 2010, 10:35 »
0
I wouldn't presume to tell anyone what to do or think, but I support the assertion that capitalism works.

By "capitalism" I mean a completely free market.  Nobody can "corner the marker" in a free market (without government intervention) because of competition.  Any company which abuses its suppliers and customers will lose them to another company that treats people with more fairness and respect.  The only antidote against inordinate corporate or individual greed is competition and freedom of choice.

Government intervention to make the markets "fair" is a losing proposition.  Because those in government have exactly the same tendency towards greed and self interest as anyone working in the private sector, the tremendous power of the government is prone to tremendous abuse.  That is why government regulation while allegedly aimed at improving the lives of the general public nearly always has the secret purpose of helping large, established corporations to shut down competition from smaller, nimbler and less greedy companies and individuals.

A classic example of harmful government intervention is the minimum wage.  Large companies like Walmart lobby the government hard to raise the rate and to impose other "standards" on corporations.  Instead of being intended to help the public, these have the (intended) effect of shutting down small, Mom and Pop businesses which have low wages and benefits, but which compete effectively with big companies because of their location, personal service and low cost structure.  Minimum wages actually hurt the people that the government claims it is trying to help, because it makes it more expensive for companies to hire young and inexperienced workers.  The law of supply and demand means that as the cost for labor goes up, the number of purchasers of labor goes down.  This is a win-win for large corporations and the government however.  Large corporations which pay rates above the minimum wage have their smaller, poorer competitors shut down.  Government gets a whole new class of unemployed and disaffected people which it can use as a welfare-dependent voting block, a rent-a-mob to be agitated whenever it suits the government's purposes, and as cannon fodder in foreign wars. 

All political parties use the government's power in the same way, so please don't construe any of what I am saying as some kind of denunciation or endorsement of any party, candidate or faction.  They are ALL greedy liars determined to seize and use the incredible power of the government for their own, selfish purposes.  Best to say as far away as possible from them and everything they do.

vonkara

« Reply #53 on: November 10, 2010, 10:36 »
0

I like the part about not working. Is it sustainable?  :D

Since uploading up to 600 new images in 6 months end in about 60$ (maybe 1000$ of production cost). It is, and I keep a good eyesight not being sticked to photoshop

jbarber873

« Reply #54 on: November 10, 2010, 10:41 »
0

I like the part about not working. Is it sustainable?  :D

Since uploading up to 600 new images in 6 months end in about 60$ (maybe 1000$ of production cost). It is, and I keep a good eyesight not being sticked to photoshop

  It's the secret to microstock! Lose 40 cents on every dollar, but make it up in volume.... ;D

« Reply #55 on: November 10, 2010, 10:58 »
0
...Any company which abuses its suppliers and customers will lose them to another company that treats people with more fairness and respect...
There's a big problem when they buy all their competitors.  If government didn't intervene, wouldn't the world be run by one person by now?  There's the monopolies and mergers Competition Commission in the UK that have saved us from being taken over by Tesco or Rupert Murdoch.  There's something similar in the US, or you would all be working for Walmart or one of the other big companies.

I like capitalism but there needs to be some sensible rules or it will end up like all the other isms.

« Reply #56 on: November 10, 2010, 11:03 »
0
There's something similar in the US, or you would all be working for Walmart or one of the other big companies.


Give it time.  ;)

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #57 on: November 10, 2010, 11:12 »
0
pet_chia did I understand you right? Are you saying there should not be a minimum wage? The reason that was put into force was for workers to earn a decent wage and not be taken advantage of by big corporations. If that wasn't in force all the world would be like some of this companies that have sweat shops where there workers are required to work for next to nothing.


A classic example of harmful government intervention is the minimum wage.  Large companies like Walmart lobby the government hard to raise the rate and to impose other "standards" on corporations.  Instead of being intended to help the public, these have the (intended) effect of shutting down small, Mom and Pop businesses which have low wages and benefits, but which compete effectively with big companies because of their location, personal service and low cost structure.  Minimum wages actually hurt the people that the government claims it is trying to help, because it makes it more expensive for companies to hire young and inexperienced workers.  The law of supply and demand means that as the cost for labor goes up, the number of purchasers of labor goes down.  This is a win-win for large corporations and the government however.  Large corporations which pay rates above the minimum wage have their smaller, poorer competitors shut down.  Government gets a whole new class of unemployed and disaffected people which it can use as a welfare-dependent voting block, a rent-a-mob to be agitated whenever it suits the government's purposes, and as cannon fodder in foreign wars. 


PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #58 on: November 10, 2010, 23:19 »
0
I kept out of the iStock complaining threads since it serves no purpose and it takes time. Since iStock (and microstock in general in the limit) is "unsustainable" for me, I basically stopped uploading. Not as a "punishment" but since it makes no sense to buy props and spend hours in Photoshop working for 1$ per hour.

How many hours would you need to work to even buy Photoshop?  ;)

« Reply #59 on: November 11, 2010, 01:34 »
0
To your last point, a couple of years ago at the PDN photo show, there was a seminar about selling stock in todays market ( or something like that ), and one point that one of the presenters made was that 40% of stock sales start as a google search. Google image search could very easily evolve with pricing comparison, given how much Google likes to get in other companies businesses and give it away for free. Although this might increase competition, it might also accelerate the race to the bottom for pricing of commodity images.
The large sites keep their mouths shut about this but I had private exchanges with some smaller sites managers (especially one) earlier on and they both told me more than 50% of their (sales) traffic came from Google. OK this might be biased since they sold little and they didn't do much marketing, but still. I'm currently more on image SEO forums, time permitting, than elsewhere. The new Google Images will be the key, I believe.

As to bottomline pricing, that's why it's a bit foolish to upload to sites that undercut the mainstream, like Thinkstock and Crestock. Sooner than later, buyers will find out and then you're burned. It's also reckless, even now, to upload the same shots on Alamy as on DT for a very different price point. People that do that shoot themselves in the feet, but it's a free market and a free world. Isn't that wonderful?

Transparency, freedom, low entry fee (an internet connection and a decent cam), both for the buyer and the seller. Oligopolistic capitalists beaten by their own weapons. Ah, just Imagine ;).

« Reply #60 on: November 11, 2010, 02:38 »
0
To your last point, a couple of years ago at the PDN photo show, there was a seminar about selling stock in todays market ( or something like that ), and one point that one of the presenters made was that 40% of stock sales start as a google search. Google image search could very easily evolve with pricing comparison, given how much Google likes to get in other companies businesses and give it away for free. Although this might increase competition, it might also accelerate the race to the bottom for pricing of commodity images.
The large sites keep their mouths shut about this but I had private exchanges with some smaller sites managers (especially one) earlier on and they both told me more than 50% of their (sales) traffic came from Google. OK this might be biased since they sold little and they didn't do much marketing, but still. I'm currently more on image SEO forums, time permitting, than elsewhere. The new Google Images will be the key, I believe.

As to bottomline pricing, that's why it's a bit foolish to upload to sites that undercut the mainstream, like Thinkstock and Crestock. Sooner than later, buyers will find out and then you're burned. It's also reckless, even now, to upload the same shots on Alamy as on DT for a very different price point. People that do that shoot themselves in the feet, but it's a free market and a free world. Isn't that wonderful?

Transparency, freedom, low entry fee (an internet connection and a decent cam), both for the buyer and the seller. Oligopolistic capitalists beaten by their own weapons. Ah, just Imagine ;).
^^^ Thinkstock don't undercut the other subs sites, I checked their prices for buyers and they are similar to their rivals.  They just pay a lower commission.  That's why I wouldn't use them.  Buyers have been very aware for years that istock are charging more than other sites but they are still the No.1 site, so I don't think price is as big a factor in the commercial world as it is for consumer sites.  I used to avoid putting microstock images on alamy but they have done nothing to stop it happening and already have millions on their site.  As we can use different pseudonyms there, I don't see a problem and there is the argument that the alamy license is less restrictive than the microstock sites, so buyers have more choice.  I wish alamy would separate microstock images from their main collection but they haven't, so I presume they aren't having many complaints from their buyers.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #61 on: November 11, 2010, 05:20 »
0
I wouldn't presume to tell anyone what to do or think, but I support the assertion that capitalism works.

By "capitalism" I mean a completely free market.  Nobody can "corner the marker" in a free market (without government intervention) because of competition.  Any company which abuses its suppliers and customers will lose them to another company that treats people with more fairness and respect.  The only antidote against inordinate corporate or individual greed is competition and freedom of choice.



What?? Ever heard about monopolies?? Forget those fairytales, if you want to know about how capitalism works, look at the actual history of some of the greatest capitalists... I suggest you start with John D. Rockefeller, Mr. Capitalism himself. His great saying? "Competiton is sin" There you go. He cornered the market so bad, that in a price war he forced the railroad companies to work for fees that didn't even cover their expenses. It ended in labor unrest because workers were afraid they would starve. There was no competition to step in, nothing. I personally don't get it how people can be fooled into beleive this vague theory about free market leading to some kind of equilibrium favorable to most people. Why yould it? It doesn't make the slightest little bit of sense at all. You may try to portrait the market as an organic entity, but it's still just a bunch of greedy people competing, and a competition can end up only one way basically: someone winning, likely the smartest, most agressive, and usually the most ruthless and shameless.... and having a monopoly. You'd better hope there is some state regulation on the so called market or you or your kids will be working simply not starve to death.

Microbius

« Reply #62 on: November 11, 2010, 05:29 »
0

I wouldn't presume to tell anyone what to do or think, but I support the assertion that capitalism works.

By "capitalism" I mean a completely free market.  Nobody can "corner the marker" in a free market (without government intervention) because of competition.  Any company which abuses its suppliers and customers will lose them to another company that treats people with more fairness and respect.  The only antidote against inordinate corporate or individual greed is competition and freedom of choice.

^^ have to agree that this crazy talk.
What happens when someone from another industry with much bigger margins comes into a market and simply buys out all the competition then does what they want (see greedy bankers buying IStock example).
That's why competition law and government intervention is absolutely necessary in any "free" market (and again you are confusing free markets and capitalism)

jbarber873

« Reply #63 on: November 11, 2010, 08:26 »
0
To your last point, a couple of years ago at the PDN photo show, there was a seminar about selling stock in todays market ( or something like that ), and one point that one of the presenters made was that 40% of stock sales start as a google search. Google image search could very easily evolve with pricing comparison, given how much Google likes to get in other companies businesses and give it away for free. Although this might increase competition, it might also accelerate the race to the bottom for pricing of commodity images.
The large sites keep their mouths shut about this but I had private exchanges with some smaller sites managers (especially one) earlier on and they both told me more than 50% of their (sales) traffic came from Google. OK this might be biased since they sold little and they didn't do much marketing, but still. I'm currently more on image SEO forums, time permitting, than elsewhere. The new Google Images will be the key, I believe.

As to bottomline pricing, that's why it's a bit foolish to upload to sites that undercut the mainstream, like Thinkstock and Crestock. Sooner than later, buyers will find out and then you're burned. It's also reckless, even now, to upload the same shots on Alamy as on DT for a very different price point. People that do that shoot themselves in the feet, but it's a free market and a free world. Isn't that wonderful?

Transparency, freedom, low entry fee (an internet connection and a decent cam), both for the buyer and the seller. Oligopolistic capitalists beaten by their own weapons. Ah, just Imagine ;).

    I'm getting lost again. Am I the oligopolistic capitalist, or is that someone else? Because I wouldn't mind being the oligopolistic capitalist for a while. It sounds like fun. Can I buy some $6000 shower curtains? Just imagine ;D

RacePhoto

« Reply #64 on: November 12, 2010, 02:22 »
0

A classic example of harmful government intervention is the minimum wage.  Large companies like Walmart lobby the government hard to raise the rate and to impose other "standards" on corporations.  Instead of being intended to help the public, these have the (intended) effect of shutting down small, Mom and Pop businesses which have low wages and benefits, but which compete effectively with big companies because of their location, personal service and low cost structure.  Minimum wages actually hurt the people that the government claims it is trying to help, because it makes it more expensive for companies to hire young and inexperienced workers.  The law of supply and demand means that as the cost for labor goes up, the number of purchasers of labor goes down.  This is a win-win for large corporations and the government however.  Large corporations which pay rates above the minimum wage have their smaller, poorer competitors shut down.  Government gets a whole new class of unemployed and disaffected people which it can use as a welfare-dependent voting block, a rent-a-mob to be agitated whenever it suits the government's purposes, and as cannon fodder in foreign wars. 


Odd that other people are charging that Walmart underpays both workers and suppliers and skimps on worker benefits. In your example they are raising wages and benefits, to drive out the competition. Can it be both ways?

Also this free market wage for workers, with no minimum wage, must explain why migrant workers and illegals get paid so well in the US? :D

A federal minimum wage was first set in 1938. WalMart first opened in 1962. I suppose you can explain the other 24 years as some sort of Government plot, before Walmart started controlling the economy?

I will agree with you on the welfare dependent voting block, created by "free money" and handouts. Just not the way it came about.

The original premise here is that a "good" agency, paying a "fair" wage, would beat all the rest. It's a free market, why haven't we seen one? Because idealistic business operations ignore the fact that they need to make money and aren't operating a business for OUR benefit, but for their own profits. A business does not operate for sake of the workers, it works for the oners and investors, so they can make a profit from their investments.

« Reply #65 on: November 12, 2010, 04:16 »
0
I'm getting lost again. Am I the oligopolistic capitalist, or is that someone else? Because I wouldn't mind being the oligopolistic capitalist for a while. It sounds like fun. Can I buy some $6000 shower curtains? Just imagine ;D
Only if you are the only curtain producer in the world.
To Molka: the free market isn't nice at all, but everybody gets the same chance. The US (in general not fond of regulation) has one of the toughest anti-oligopolistic sets of laws in the world.
As to Rockefeller, wasn't that the guy that co-invented private banking money-printing in that conspiracy on Jekyll Island in 1910?  ;D
Ah well, here is my ZeitGeist again... A gift from the little prick  :P

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #66 on: November 12, 2010, 04:54 »
0
I'm getting lost again. Am I the oligopolistic capitalist, or is that someone else? Because I wouldn't mind being the oligopolistic capitalist for a while. It sounds like fun. Can I buy some $6000 shower curtains? Just imagine ;D
Only if you are the only curtain producer in the world.
What a glorious non-sequitur!


molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #67 on: November 12, 2010, 05:24 »
0
I'm getting lost again. Am I the oligopolistic capitalist, or is that someone else? Because I wouldn't mind being the oligopolistic capitalist for a while. It sounds like fun. Can I buy some $6000 shower curtains? Just imagine ;D
Only if you are the only curtain producer in the world.
To Molka: the free market isn't nice at all, but everybody gets the same chance. The US (in general not fond of regulation) has one of the toughest anti-oligopolistic sets of laws in the world.
As to Rockefeller, wasn't that the guy that co-invented private banking money-printing in that conspiracy on Jekyll Island in 1910?  ;D
Ah well, here is my ZeitGeist again... A gift from the little prick  :P


Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't really think you, or me have the same chance as someone born into the Rockefeller or Warburg family, or even just one of the richer families in the small rural town I came from. We are also born with different abilities and talent, there's absolutely no chance for the practical realisation of egality in the real world. What you can do is, try to be fair to others. It rarely works.

Zeitgeist is the jerry springfield show of social documentaries, appealing to the same 'level of audience'. Who of course, think they are incredibly smart
 thru falling falling for all of the (sometimes painfully obvious) nonsense in it.

Get educated:
http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-three/#income_tax

(just a particularly funny part, you'll find the rest)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3392 Views
Last post November 28, 2007, 23:22
by Peiling
53 Replies
11568 Views
Last post May 02, 2009, 05:23
by zymmetricaldotcom
Pigs can fly (again)

Started by microstockphoto.co.uk Off Topic

4 Replies
1504 Views
Last post September 28, 2011, 11:23
by RacePhoto
12 Replies
3830 Views
Last post January 23, 2013, 12:59
by CD123
3 Replies
2678 Views
Last post February 21, 2019, 07:37
by trabuco

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle