MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => New Sites - General => Topic started by: Freezingpictures on July 17, 2007, 05:51
-
Anyone knows anything about www.moodboard.com? Looks to me like midstock, but they seem to call themselve microstock..
-
Their prices go up to GBP 399. That's as macro as it gets, isn't it?
-
The owner seems to be Mike Watson Images which again, according to this article:
http://www.stockphototalk.com/phototalk/2006/05/corbis_partners.html
is represented by Corbis.
Confused? Not after the next episode of "Stock", the never-ending image opera :D
-
it certainly has a 'lucky oliver-esque' feel to it.
perhaps because it is coded in ajax (is that the right word) or perhaps because it has the same colors???
-
Moodboard is both a micro and a macro combined. They accept images for sale in their micro collection, their RF collection, and their RM collection. They are VERY selective and pride themselves on accepting an average of 2% of submissions (yes, that's a 98% rejection rate). They have partnered with Corbis as well as other brands around the world.
-
They are VERY selective and pride themselves on accepting an average of 2% of submissions (yes, that's a 98% rejection rate).
Why bother uploading if they will reject all. You have to upload 50 just to get one in. They would have to have very very good sales to make it worth it. Definately not a MICRO model. For Macro maybe .
-
and I think perhaps images have to be exclusive as well??
they have some pretty successful companies that they are partnering with though, so perhaps it is promising.
-
I have applied there out of curiousity. They seem to be interested in my work and ask me if I have any archives to take a look if the can use some of my images.
What do they mean by archive? My Portfolio at another agency? Or an online library of my images where you can view them at 100%?
-
Some feedback regarding Moodboard.
I have been communicating for 6 months with Jo from the site.
The people on board at mood have business development experiences from companies like Getty, and Digital Vision.
Their original business plan was for Premium Macro, and middle-market Micro. Their difference is a considerably higher price point.
They are after 5 or so images as a way of accepting you before you get access to the backend.
They asked for a lot of feedback in the interim set up period and I have always found them to be very open to suggestions.
Cheers
-
Wrote them two messages some days ago via their contact form, no answer so far ;-( SY
-
Last week I sent in some sample images and an application. never even received an aknowledgment email. Today they phoned me to let me know that they will be writing me soon and wanted to know how "interested" I really was in doing stock work.
Never had that happen before.
Judy
-
Did some of you guys submit images to moodboard? Any feedback?
-
Just wondering if anyone recommend this site.
I heard a few quirks with this site, though:
1) the photographer's name is not shown on the photograph page
2) you cannot delete your images.
Am I right?
-
I've uploaded my very small portfolio but it is a weird process and the shots and vectors they accepted are not my best sellers. They rejected about 40% of what i uploaded including some of the better stuff (but my opinion only). There is no reason for the rejection supplied they just go into a tabbed folder called "not selected".
It is a slow process and i've had about 20 shots sitting there for some weeks until i get the motivation to process. No sales obviously and no way of seeing views as far as i can tell.
I cannot find any way of deleting images once approved which is a worry. You also have to go to my.moodboard.com to submit and there is no submitter link on the main site which i found irritating. Why they don't put in a submitter login below the Artist registration box is beyond me.
I agree it looks a bit Lucky Oliver but it seems to have a groovier appeal and they will do searches for buyers which is more of a midstock kind of service.
I have looked through their site as a buyer for some specific images i couldn't find elsewhere and the material i found was a bit average.
Anyone else bothering with this?
-
There is no photographer's credit on the image page, right?
There is no watermark either !
Don't you question these two very basic missing items? 8)