pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA  (Read 26242 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lisafx

« Reply #100 on: November 22, 2010, 15:54 »
0

@Lisa: jumping on the bandwagon is easy. staying on the bandwagon, producing despite an ever-growing pool of competitor's images, and rolling with some fairly large punches takes more than a little bit of effort.


Ah.  Thanks for explaining that to me.  Personally, I wouldn't know.  ;)

Quote
I think it's a fair system to attempt to reward contributors working hard and producing sales. new or old contributors and those of us in the middle.

And just so we're clear - if you are not exclusive at IS, you will NOT be rewarded at all.  You WILL be having your commissions lowered, in spite of how much work you are putting in or how many sales you generate.  The target of over 1.4 million RC's is pretty much impossible to hit in a year, even for top sellers. 
« Last Edit: November 22, 2010, 15:58 by lisafx »


« Reply #101 on: November 22, 2010, 15:59 »
0
Tried following the iStock examples and it looks like they may have pulled one of each of pairs. I guess that is an improvement.

The idea of Vetta is just a group of images that someone liked. You pay extra for having them sort through the mass, not because the images are 5x better...


I just wonder who liked this image so much that it became Vetta
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14723753-corporate-helicopter-in-hangar.php

ShadySue

« Reply #102 on: November 22, 2010, 16:05 »
0
I just wonder who liked this image so much that it became Vetta
[snip]
It was uploaded on 1st Nov so can't have been up for more than a couple of weeks and has sold three times. Seems pretty good.
It probably needed a PR, which could be hard to get, so Vetta for rarity value(?)

« Reply #103 on: November 22, 2010, 16:20 »
0
I just wonder who liked this image so much that it became Vetta
[snip]
It was uploaded on 1st Nov so can't have been up for more than a couple of weeks and has sold three times. Seems pretty good.
It probably needed a PR, which could be hard to get, so Vetta for rarity value(?)

I was more thinking about cutting the blade edges and lamp on the ceiling. So it's not the best composition and lighting is also not very good. And I don't think it's a rare image on the other hand.

I am a bit frustrated with Vetta selections lately. Trying some soft light, artistic shots but none of them has been accepted to Vetta :(

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #104 on: November 22, 2010, 17:46 »
0

@Lisa: jumping on the bandwagon is easy. staying on the bandwagon, producing despite an ever-growing pool of competitor's images, and rolling with some fairly large punches takes more than a little bit of effort.


Ah.  Thanks for explaining that to me.  Personally, I wouldn't know.  ;)

Quote
I think it's a fair system to attempt to reward contributors working hard and producing sales. new or old contributors and those of us in the middle.

And just so we're clear - if you are not exclusive at IS, you will NOT be rewarded at all.  You WILL be having your commissions lowered, in spite of how much work you are putting in or how many sales you generate.  The target of over 1.4 million RC's is pretty much impossible to hit in a year, even for top sellers. 

I know you don't need it pointed out to you. it's more for the benefit of people in here who don't know. a few points in this thread suggest that iStock is intentionally railroading exclusives by * in newbies. they are certainly railroading non-exclusives...no argument. I don't think anyone would ever accuse you of not working hard, I think you know that wasn't my point ;-)

lisafx

« Reply #105 on: November 22, 2010, 17:49 »
0


I know you don't need it pointed out to you. it's more for the benefit of people in here who don't know. a few points in this thread suggest that iStock is intentionally railroading exclusives by  in newbies. they are certainly railroading non-exclusives...no argument. I don't think anyone would ever accuse you of not working hard, I think you know that wasn't my point ;-)

I understand now :).  Since your comment was directed "@ Lisa", yes, I assumed you meant me...

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #106 on: November 22, 2010, 18:04 »
0
I look at it like anyone with 9644 files in their port (sjlocke) or 6000+ files (lisafx) and all the others who have been around awhile, not only have helped grow the company and deserve rewards, but should be allowed to slack off just a little if they wanted to without being punished.

@ RT... :)

...
What about someone who has 6,000+ files and only a couple thousand downloads since 2002? Did they really help grow the company?
....

Absolutely yes. 2000 DL's is a nice profit on those files. what's that, like 20-30 gigs? probably less. storage is cheap, that's why this business is hugely profitable, most of you have no idea how hugely. you people really do fall for that 'unsustainable' crap? why do you think getty bothered with buying them? Jesus... plz THINK. They would have large profits with third of the sales, thats why they can get away with running it so stupidly.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #107 on: November 22, 2010, 18:28 »
0
I look at it like anyone with 9644 files in their port (sjlocke) or 6000+ files (lisafx) and all the others who have been around awhile, not only have helped grow the company and deserve rewards, but should be allowed to slack off just a little if they wanted to without being punished.

@ RT... :)

...
What about someone who has 6,000+ files and only a couple thousand downloads since 2002? Did they really help grow the company?
....

Absolutely yes. 2000 DL's is a nice profit on those files. what's that, like 20-30 gigs? probably less. storage is cheap, that's why this business is hugely profitable, most of you have no idea how hugely. you people really do fall for that 'unsustainable' crap? why do you think getty bothered with buying them? Jesus... plz THINK. They would have large profits with third of the sales, thats why they can get away with running it so stupidly.

While I don't disagree that the business is probably hugely profitable, do you think the only cost of running the business is storage?

I don't know what IS's breakeven is per contributor. Do you?

« Reply #108 on: November 22, 2010, 18:45 »
0
I look at it like anyone with 9644 files in their port (sjlocke) or 6000+ files (lisafx) and all the others who have been around awhile, not only have helped grow the company and deserve rewards, but should be allowed to slack off just a little if they wanted to without being punished.

@ RT... :)

...
What about someone who has 6,000+ files and only a couple thousand downloads since 2002? Did they really help grow the company?
....

Absolutely yes. 2000 DL's is a nice profit on those files. what's that, like 20-30 gigs? probably less. storage is cheap, that's why this business is hugely profitable, most of you have no idea how hugely. you people really do fall for that 'unsustainable' crap? why do you think getty bothered with buying them? Jesus... plz THINK. They would have large profits with third of the sales, thats why they can get away with running it so stupidly.

While I don't disagree that the business is probably hugely profitable, do you think the only cost of running the business is storage?

I don't know what IS's breakeven is per contributor. Do you?

I remember a topic while ago regarding Google, they have a profitable business right? IS doesn't have for sure or something is wrong.. The cut is on every contributor not just the smaller one, exclusive or not, people making 40k a year isn't good to IS?

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #109 on: November 22, 2010, 19:44 »
0
I look at it like anyone with 9644 files in their port (sjlocke) or 6000+ files (lisafx) and all the others who have been around awhile, not only have helped grow the company and deserve rewards, but should be allowed to slack off just a little if they wanted to without being punished.

@ RT... :)

...
What about someone who has 6,000+ files and only a couple thousand downloads since 2002? Did they really help grow the company?
....

Absolutely yes. 2000 DL's is a nice profit on those files. what's that, like 20-30 gigs? probably less. storage is cheap, that's why this business is hugely profitable, most of you have no idea how hugely. you people really do fall for that 'unsustainable' crap? why do you think getty bothered with buying them? Jesus... plz THINK. They would have large profits with third of the sales, thats why they can get away with running it so stupidly.

While I don't disagree that the business is probably hugely profitable, do you think the only cost of running the business is storage?

I don't know what IS's breakeven is per contributor. Do you?

I remember a topic while ago regarding Google, they have a profitable business right? IS doesn't have for sure or something is wrong.. The cut is on every contributor not just the smaller one, exclusive or not, people making 40k a year isn't good to IS?

40K a year? You didn't read my post.

« Reply #110 on: November 22, 2010, 20:09 »
0
I did, my point is that IS isn't worried if they have low performance contributors they are just looking into fill even more their pockets, it is ridiculous to think how much they need to breakeven, they earn enough and nobody should waste time thinking why they cut, increase, breakeven, etc... the lower contributors (myself) have given enough already to pay the reviewers work, ads or storage..

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #111 on: November 22, 2010, 20:16 »
0
I did, my point is that IS isn't worried if they have low performance contributors they are just looking into fill even more their pockets, it is ridiculous to think how much they need to breakeven, they earn enough and nobody should waste time thinking why they cut, increase, breakeven, etc... the lower contributors (myself) have given enough already to pay the reviewers work, ads or storage..

You're right. I'm going to go quit wasting time on posts like this and go make more money.

« Reply #112 on: November 22, 2010, 20:18 »
0
I did, my point is that IS isn't worried if they have low performance contributors they are just looking into fill even more their pockets, it is ridiculous to think how much they need to breakeven, they earn enough and nobody should waste time thinking why they cut, increase, breakeven, etc... the lower contributors (myself) have given enough already to pay the reviewers work, ads or storage..

You're right. I'm going to go quit wasting time on posts like this and go make more money.

I do the same when everybody complains that stock is dead, sure it is :)

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #113 on: November 23, 2010, 08:14 »
0
I look at it like anyone with 9644 files in their port (sjlocke) or 6000+ files (lisafx) and all the others who have been around awhile, not only have helped grow the company and deserve rewards, but should be allowed to slack off just a little if they wanted to without being punished.

@ RT... :)

...
What about someone who has 6,000+ files and only a couple thousand downloads since 2002? Did they really help grow the company?
....

Absolutely yes. 2000 DL's is a nice profit on those files. what's that, like 20-30 gigs? probably less. storage is cheap, that's why this business is hugely profitable, most of you have no idea how hugely. you people really do fall for that 'unsustainable' crap? why do you think getty bothered with buying them? Jesus... plz THINK. They would have large profits with third of the sales, thats why they can get away with running it so stupidly.

While I don't disagree that the business is probably hugely profitable, do you think the only cost of running the business is storage?

I don't know what IS's breakeven is per contributor. Do you?

No I don't, but that's what you can measure up when it comes to sales / # of pics. I have a friend who works pretty high rank at big net company so I have decent picture of the stuff that goes on in places like that. That's why I don't fall for 'unsustainable for the site owners' crap and the like... I can't beleive anyone was dumb enough to take that seriuosly even for splitsecond. 

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #114 on: November 23, 2010, 22:18 »
0
Yes I also have a friend who has an uncle who knows... absolutely nothing about running a microstock site.

You don't need to buy the unsustainable crap. It's pretty simple. The more the site grows over time the less the profit margin. Could they have gone on for 50 years with the old model. Probably. But if I owned a business, ran the numbers, and saw my profit margin dropping year over year, I'd make some changes. They wanted to make changes, and they did. It sucks for a lot of people being on the receiving end of the changes, but hey, that's business.

As far as them making a nice profit on people with poor performance, I doubt it. There's a breakeven level and the people who are taking severe commission cuts are probably close to it or below it.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #115 on: December 01, 2010, 01:22 »
0
Yes I also have a friend who has an uncle who knows... absolutely nothing about running a microstock site.

You don't need to buy the unsustainable crap. It's pretty simple. The more the site grows over time the less the profit margin. Could they have gone on for 50 years with the old model. Probably. But if I owned a business, ran the numbers, and saw my profit margin dropping year over year, I'd make some changes. They wanted to make changes, and they did. It sucks for a lot of people being on the receiving end of the changes, but hey, that's business.

As far as them making a nice profit on people with poor performance, I doubt it. There's a breakeven level and the people who are taking severe commission cuts are probably close to it or below it.

again, bang on. I'm pretty sure I've disagreed with you in the past on some things, but this week you're full of the wisdom Paulie ;-)

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #116 on: December 01, 2010, 07:30 »
0
Yes I also have a friend who has an uncle who knows... absolutely nothing about running a microstock site.

You don't need to buy the unsustainable crap. It's pretty simple. The more the site grows over time the less the profit margin. Could they have gone on for 50 years with the old model. Probably. But if I owned a business, ran the numbers, and saw my profit margin dropping year over year, I'd make some changes. They wanted to make changes, and they did. It sucks for a lot of people being on the receiving end of the changes, but hey, that's business.

As far as them making a nice profit on people with poor performance, I doubt it. There's a breakeven level and the people who are taking severe commission cuts are probably close to it or below it.

well he's not an uncle, but someone I talk to almost everyday and he is a high level mathematician, BI expert at a large net company. Direct insight into payment systems, operational costs, storage cost, HR, coding, you name it. He runs them basically. There you go.

"But if I owned a business, ran the numbers, and saw my profit margin dropping year over year, I'd make some changes."

That in itself sounds ok, but given the context, it's the old greed scheme that it has to grow, and grow rapidly if possible. To this extent, it doesn't work. They do make money even on seemingly poor performers, this is a low cost business unless you advertise like crazy and they don't.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #117 on: December 01, 2010, 12:43 »
0
the argument that there is still any separation between higher class shooters and microstock contributors is a lame duck. iStock is full of pro shooters these days (as I'm sure some of the other agencies are). my husband is a mathematician. so what.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #118 on: December 01, 2010, 13:58 »
0
my husband is a mathematician. so what.

Is he running BI at large net business? I guess your definitosn of a pro shooter is someone who learned to get a good histogram or smthng like that : )

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #119 on: December 01, 2010, 14:13 »
0
you win, your mathematician is better than mine. like I said, who cares?

if only I had a penny for every too-good-for-microstock 'pro' I've heard complain about not being able to get their images accepted on iStock--and then decided they are just too good and too 'pro' for microstock. it's a silly, and old argument based on dated ideas.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #120 on: December 01, 2010, 14:28 »
0
you win, your mathematician is better than mine. like I said, who cares?

if only I had a penny for every too-good-for-microstock 'pro' I've heard complain about not being able to get their images accepted on iStock--and then decided they are just too good and too 'pro' for microstock. it's a silly, and old argument based on dated ideas.

Try reading back to at least have a vague idea of what we were talking about... thx : )

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #121 on: December 01, 2010, 15:03 »
0
got to love irony

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #122 on: December 01, 2010, 15:14 »
0
I think a lot of the "old pro" photographer's have trouble with your basic stock photography. They might be photo journalist or wedding and portrait photographers and are great at what they do, but most of the time those wedding shots or portrait shots don't sell as stock. The more creative artsy "old pros" have a better chance of doing stock. Also I've heard many of the "Old Pros" say the technical requirements of microstock is much greater than they expected, which is another reason they can't get in. A lot of what they shoot are printed, whereas the noise ect doesn't matter.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #123 on: December 01, 2010, 15:22 »
0
^ yes. on the other hand, as someone has posted in another thread, microstock technical requirements have the potential to change the way we shoot. sometimes I worry about missing a great shot, a beautiful photograph, simply because I know it wouldn't meet iStock tech requirements.

Vetta is a whole other entity. now that they're placing 'perfect' stock images in Agency and no longer in Vetta, I have less interest in Vetta and more interest in contributing to Agency. Vetta is a 'look what I can do' art gallery. I want to have files in the art gallery, but I'm more interested in producing highly usable images.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
13 Replies
3436 Views
Last post October 23, 2008, 22:54
by helix7
3 Replies
1767 Views
Last post July 26, 2009, 14:38
by madelaide
12 Replies
3923 Views
Last post July 05, 2011, 14:45
by Shank_ali
9 Replies
3002 Views
Last post January 25, 2017, 11:34
by izzikiorage
2 Replies
1776 Views
Last post May 02, 2017, 09:21
by Noedelhap

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results