MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: death of istock postponed?  (Read 27325 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: April 07, 2013, 02:40 »
+2
^^^ You do what's best for you.
What I can tell you is that the People who "have success at IS and Getty" are becoming a minority.


« Reply #26 on: April 07, 2013, 02:45 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:44 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #27 on: April 07, 2013, 02:46 »
+5
I have been an indy for 3 days now, I think some patience will help before jumping to any conclusions.

« Reply #28 on: April 07, 2013, 02:47 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:44 by Audi 5000 »

shudderstok

« Reply #29 on: April 07, 2013, 02:53 »
0
^^^ You do what's best for you.
What I can tell you is that the People who "have success at IS and Getty" are becoming a minority.

With all due respect, what I can tell you is that the photographers who have success with stock photography are the minority. There are not that many that are fortunate enough to make a full time living shooting stock only. My guess would be less than 10% of the stock shooters could rely on stock photography alone - regardless of where they market their work. If you are one of them, count your blessings  ;)

ShadySue

« Reply #30 on: April 07, 2013, 07:04 »
+2
Oh ok I thought it had a been at least a month by now.
I wouldn't make anything from figures from going indie for at least six months to a year, though some report improvement inside that time (depends entirely on the nature of their portfolio - in particular, whether it matches SS's buyer profile, AFAICS).

Clarification: by "I wouldn't make anything from figures ...", I meant, "I wouldn't draw any conclusions from figures ...".
« Last Edit: April 07, 2013, 10:02 by ShadySue »

« Reply #31 on: April 07, 2013, 07:44 »
+1
^^^ You do what's best for you.
What I can tell you is that the People who "have success at IS and Getty" are becoming a minority.

With all due respect, what I can tell you is that the photographers who have success with stock photography are the minority. There are not that many that are fortunate enough to make a full time living shooting stock only. My guess would be less than 10% of the stock shooters could rely on stock photography alone - regardless of where they market their work. If you are one of them, count your blessings  ;)

% might be slightly higher here but, based on FT rank achieved with very low numbers, I suspect that <5% overall make a living from stock

« Reply #32 on: April 07, 2013, 08:10 »
+12
"To make a living from stock" is just related to the amount of work you put into it. You do it for 50 hours a week, create solid and sellable content and you can live from it. Loads of people do.

Like any other business.

But of course there is a huge number of people who do stock as  a hobby, or who mix stock with other jobs, wether it is IT or assigment work.

All the people I know who want to make stock a full time income have succeeded in doing so. Obviously you need to have your pulse on the market, but that is required with any business.

« Reply #33 on: April 07, 2013, 09:49 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:43 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #34 on: April 07, 2013, 09:55 »
+2
I think it indicates people are hesitant to post anything unless couched in platitudes.

or maybe it was just a great month over there at IS. sure was for me  :)
Sure wasn't for me; almost 50% down on dls; around 40% down on $$ compared to last March. Jetlagged, so haven't worked it out exactly yet. April has started equally dismally.

(Nevertheless, I see no reason why someone has minused your post.)

My posts get minused because i don't think the same as most posters here. so the flock mentality tends to get upset. it's supposed to be a bad thing to have success at IS and Getty. i should be a "Stock Groupie" and deify certain people and take everything they say as gospel, and then have an emotional outburst and drop the crown. -1 -1 -1 LOL.

No, you get the minuses because of posts like that one. And I don't see a flock mentality here...most everyone (excluding the obvious trolls), I think, are very intelligent and think the same as I do. You call it flock mentality. I call it great minds thinking parallel.  :D

ShadySue

« Reply #35 on: April 07, 2013, 10:04 »
+5
Oh ok I thought it had a been at least a month by now.
I wouldn't make anything from figures from going indie for at least six months to a year, though some report improvement inside that time (depends entirely on the nature of their portfolio - in particular, whether it matches SS's buyer profile, AFAICS).
I live off of the income I get so every single month is important.  If you lose $10,000 before getting back to the same amount you were making that is a huge consideration.
But if your iS income is sinking by a large amount per month, that is also a huge consideration.
Remember that aeonf was one of the great iS cheerleaders who for a while was reporting great months when others were already sinking (before his tog/s hit the wall and/or iS mucked up just too much even for their port).

« Reply #36 on: April 07, 2013, 11:17 »
+5
"shudderstock"

if you want people to take you seriously, you just have to provide links to your portfolios on istock or getty. You claim to be a successful istock exclusive artist and supposedly make a full time living from getty...welll....show us...dont hide...what are you so scared off???

If we see an impressive port with over 200 000 downloads, you will notice that what you write will be taken with a lot more appreciation.

Without a portfolio and proven success you will remain hot air. Anybody can make claims about their millions on mars, if it is not possible to verify the story.

Also you are doing Getty and istock a great disservice by being anonymous. It makes the company look totally desperate that they need to send in "anonymous posters" to msg to "sway the stupid masses".

If you think we are such idiots, why bother to come "down here" to enlighten us?

That is, if you are indeed a successful photographer making a full time living on istock and getty. There are only so many black diamonds out there and I have never heard of anyone of them needing to hide.


« Reply #37 on: April 07, 2013, 11:23 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:43 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #38 on: April 07, 2013, 11:30 »
+4
Well, he is making it sound like he is one, doesnt he? Did you read the way he writes about Sean? Makes it sound like he sells more and makes more money than he used to do.

Any portfolio link would help to raise the credibility.

I think it would be great if people who are doing well at istock and Getty post here. I just dont see them do it. Not even on the istock forums, where you would expect them to be highly active in their "natural habitat". If only to support Lobo and the moderators who are doing all they can to raise morale over there.

So if he is not ready to support the istock team on istock, why bother to "enlighten us"??

Again, if shudderstck is doing a full time living from istock that is fantastic. Even better if his income is increasing. I just think it is bizarre he doesnt post his success on istock and instead comes here to brag about his invisible portfolio. 
« Last Edit: April 07, 2013, 11:57 by cobalt »

ShadySue

« Reply #39 on: April 07, 2013, 11:47 »
+3
Why would someone need to be a black diamond to make a living as an Istock exclusive?  At $9 RPD you would only need to sell 4,000 images to be making an above average income in the US and to do that you don't even have to be a gold level contributor.
I'm Gold and my RPD is lower than that. ($5.52 in March, one of my better RPD months due to low sales.) I accept if you have a lot of Vetta/Agency files you could easily have $9 RPD, but then your shooting expenses would be much higher than mine.)

In fact March 2013 was my equal highest month for RPD, but my lowest month for dls since July 2007, the month before I became exclusive and seven months after I started.

« Reply #40 on: April 07, 2013, 13:52 »
+10
I don't think it's time to start drafting iStock's obituary, but I do think that (almost entirely due to their own actions and inactions) iStock position within the market is firmly on the slide.  Not quite in freefall just now though.

As an exclusive there I'm still hoping they have the ability and will to turn things around, but having said that, I'm very glad to see iStock being forced to compete for customers and contributors within a lively and strong marketplace, because I think we all know how things would go if Getty&co really did have the market all sewn up.

« Reply #41 on: April 07, 2013, 15:29 »
+5
istock is doing a lot of great things lately. They have speed up the exclusive queue, there is a new lypse coming, new creative briefs, more support from getty art directors (for exclusives), the weekly showcase thread will finally get great visibilty etc...

The only thing missing are more sales and people need to feel comfortable posting on istock without fear of repercussions. Getting banned from the forums with a time out is one thing, getting completly kicked out for pointing out the obvious is just incredible.

I sincerly hope istock gets back on track. It used to be such a fun place to work and spend your time. We all miss it.


« Reply #42 on: April 07, 2013, 17:02 »
-1
Why would someone need to be a black diamond to make a living as an Istock exclusive?  At $9 RPD you would only need to sell 4,000 images to be making an above average income in the US and to do that you don't even have to be a gold level contributor.
Seriously??

a) Equates to < 28,000 - not great money
b) 4,000 images annually - doubt many make that year 1 so would pretty much have to be gold at least

rubyroo

« Reply #43 on: April 07, 2013, 17:03 »
+1
The only thing missing are more sales and people need to feel comfortable posting on istock without fear of repercussions.

Yes to those, plus the things you mentioned previously:

Forewarning of new deals and the possibility to opt out.

shudderstok

« Reply #44 on: April 07, 2013, 17:09 »
-4
"shudderstock"

if you want people to take you seriously, you just have to provide links to your portfolios on istock or getty. You claim to be a successful istock exclusive artist and supposedly make a full time living from getty...welll....show us...dont hide...what are you so scared off???

If we see an impressive port with over 200 000 downloads, you will notice that what you write will be taken with a lot more appreciation.

Without a portfolio and proven success you will remain hot air. Anybody can make claims about their millions on mars, if it is not possible to verify the story.

Also you are doing Getty and istock a great disservice by being anonymous. It makes the company look totally desperate that they need to send in "anonymous posters" to msg to "sway the stupid masses".

If you think we are such idiots, why bother to come "down here" to enlighten us?

That is, if you are indeed a successful photographer making a full time living on istock and getty. There are only so many black diamonds out there and I have never heard of anyone of them needing to hide.

Do you want to see my Profit and Loss statement as well? My tax returns, just to double check I am making a living? NOT.

Some of us don't need to post everything about our PRIVATE businesses online or on forums. I trust you understand.

I am also entitled to have my own views, and apologies if they differ from yours or others. I trust you understand.

I don't care if you or anyone else takes me "seriously", this is forum land and has very little to do with "real life". I trust you understand.

Take a deep breath honey, don't be so serious about yourself.

Oh, and FYI I am not a Black Diamond, but I do still make a very good living from stock, and I don't have to prove a * thing to you. I trust you understand.


ShadySue

« Reply #45 on: April 07, 2013, 17:12 »
0
Why would someone need to be a black diamond to make a living as an Istock exclusive?  At $9 RPD you would only need to sell 4,000 images to be making an above average income in the US and to do that you don't even have to be a gold level contributor.

Seriously??

a) Equates to < 28,000 - not great money
b) 4,000 images annually - doubt many make that year 1 so would pretty much have to be gold at least

Indeed.
$36,000, minus expenses (studio equipment, models etc, probably essential to get consistent agency images) with no benefits (e.g. healthcare insurance) would be a low salary in the US.
http://www.mybudget360.com/how-much-do-americans-earn-what-is-the-average-us-income

« Reply #46 on: April 07, 2013, 17:14 »
+2
I do understand. So does everyone else in "forumland". Thank you very much.

Have a great day!

:)

shudderstok

« Reply #47 on: April 07, 2013, 17:23 »
-5
Why would someone need to be a black diamond to make a living as an Istock exclusive?  At $9 RPD you would only need to sell 4,000 images to be making an above average income in the US and to do that you don't even have to be a gold level contributor.

Apparently you have to be Black Diamond to make a living on IS. And you now apparently have to disclose your income on the forums and show your portfolio to prove it, otherwise you won't gain any respect and credibility.
 
But then again, if you think like a normal person that is not prone to emotional outbursts and think clearly, yes your math ShadySue is bang on, and you would not even need to be a Gold level contributor. Or you could also make 8,000 downloads at $4.50 RPD, and still make a living.

shudderstok

« Reply #48 on: April 07, 2013, 17:32 »
+1
I think it indicates people are hesitant to post anything unless couched in platitudes.

or maybe it was just a great month over there at IS. sure was for me  :)
Sure wasn't for me; almost 50% down on dls; around 40% down on $$ compared to last March. Jetlagged, so haven't worked it out exactly yet. April has started equally dismally.

(Nevertheless, I see no reason why someone has minused your post.)

My posts get minused because i don't think the same as most posters here. so the flock mentality tends to get upset. it's supposed to be a bad thing to have success at IS and Getty. i should be a "Stock Groupie" and deify certain people and take everything they say as gospel, and then have an emotional outburst and drop the crown. -1 -1 -1 LOL.

No, you get the minuses because of posts like that one. And I don't see a flock mentality here...most everyone (excluding the obvious trolls), I think, are very intelligent and think the same as I do. You call it flock mentality. I call it great minds thinking parallel.  :D


i think the post was about this comment

or maybe it was just a great month over there at IS. sure was for me  :)

which was up to -6 at one point.

i am not so sure why there is such a hate on for any success at IS and anything positive about it is instantly ranked as a minus.

i agree with you that most people here are intelligent and think like you do, but what gets me is why is it such a bad thing to say you had a good month at IS?




Poncke

« Reply #49 on: April 07, 2013, 17:38 »
+1
28k euro is what an project executive makes at Xerox in Dublin. Its underpaid for the role, but you can live a normal life with that money in Ireland. If I could make 28k a year with photography I would consider quiting my day job.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
3704 Views
Last post August 11, 2008, 03:30
by Peter
19 Replies
4844 Views
Last post January 16, 2010, 09:17
by eyeCatchLight
26 Replies
7876 Views
Last post February 23, 2010, 18:58
by FD
6 Replies
3040 Views
Last post January 03, 2015, 12:40
by Freedom
3 Replies
1987 Views
Last post January 31, 2019, 12:22
by kenwood

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results