|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - BaldricksTrousers
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 47 ... 206
1026
« on: September 19, 2014, 15:04 »
It may not be one of the world's top 10 universities. (Actually, I see it isn't even one of Turkey's top 10, it comes in at 39th in Turkey or 1,791 in the world. But at least it is a better university than the Turkey Police Academy. http://www.webometrics.info/en/asia/turkey)
1027
« on: September 18, 2014, 12:09 »
It's not really a "higher end" collection, though.
1028
« on: September 18, 2014, 10:14 »
"Deborah Dorchak - Also, the larger images sizes made no difference to me. I have a plugin on my Photoshop that allows me to blow up an image to any size without losing the resolution. I saved a lot of money over the years buying 1 credit images and then blowing them up as needed."
thanks for the laugh Deborah 
Obviously, they're not going to be the quality she thinks they are, but there's nothing that says she can't modify the image as needed. There's no licensing terms that say an image has to be used at or below the size licensed.
Actually, she's technically correct. She isn't GAINING any resolution but she isn't losing any, either. In practical terms there is also something to be said for her position, since a good 6MP image will produce a respectable 30x20 inch print (100ppi is still pretty sharp) and from there on the more you blow it up the further back you have to stand to see it, so the image degradation isn't likely to be a big problem.
1029
« on: September 18, 2014, 08:51 »
This is a significant point from FB:
(Kerstin Gerhardt)... and whats about this possibility: buyers can buy the largest size - maby XXXL because its the same price. They put them on a webpage - because they dont have photoshop or similar - and anybody can download the "free" XXXL size from the page. We all know, there are a lot of people without knowledge about programming homepages or the law about internet. Thats impossible with XS sizes... but now...
1030
« on: September 18, 2014, 08:40 »
That's possible. It's also possible that people are buying fewer images, especially those who normally look at the lower priced offerings.
1031
« on: September 18, 2014, 07:30 »
Not sure but it seems you are still ignoring the fact that there are thousands and thousands of customers not belonging to the design firms and publishers with employees and office and all category. You call them cheapskates, they are just different customers, with different needs, which should come with different pricing. You want to get rid of that market altogether so it seems, probably shooting yourself in the foot, losing a lot of revenue.
He might be right now, thought. I'm sure there WERE a lot of "cheapskates" and that they were responsible for lots of my sales, but I have hardly sold anything since the big "improvement" last weekend, so maybe they have all left the building.
1032
« on: September 18, 2014, 04:19 »
You have to have been around for a long time to remember the last iStock commission increases, but back then they always tested the new pricing levels for two or three months to make sure they weren't losing customers before they adjusted the commission rates.
That was before they were a publicly quoted company, of course.
1033
« on: September 17, 2014, 13:27 »
I'd better hang on to my Leica R4s Mod P and Summicron lenses, then.
I cannot see the R series ever being especially collectible. .
No, nor can I. But it does take nice pictures, so I'll just make do with that.
1034
« on: September 17, 2014, 11:24 »
I'd better hang on to my Leica R4s Mod P and Summicron lenses, then.
1036
« on: September 17, 2014, 04:07 »
Oh, stop being so melodramatic. There are lots of people who would like to pay for an image they can use, just like people want to pay $1 for a song on itunes, to be legal.
i know but customer demand cannot meet supply if the prices they're willing to pay are too low.
Demand doesn't meet supply, supply meets demand. So if iStock wants to price itself out of the market another supplier will be there to pick up the disaffected customers. You also seem to assume that the "cheap" buyer only ever wants one photo and shouldn't be in business if he or she can't afford $15. What about the project that needs 20 images? $300 is a little bit more than pocket-money.
1037
« on: September 17, 2014, 02:03 »
Hopefully it hasn't got a built in light-meter so that the purity of the buyers' photographic understanding will be utilised to the full.
1038
« on: September 16, 2014, 17:12 »
If I were them I'd just submit XL and no larger.
I applied that theory with Dreamstime in the early days - then they started selling a range of sizes and I found my stuff was locked into the lower part of the price range, so if you cut sizes to avoid them having XXL sizes you could find yourself losing out tomorrow/next week/month/year ... whenever they introduce the next marvellous new revamp to meet the demands of customers. Come to think of it, the fact that they offer a range of sizes to download instead of just the largest could mean that they are already planning to adjust the pricing for different size files, once they get the punters to accept the new credit prices.
1039
« on: September 14, 2014, 11:59 »
according to the poll results here to our right,
IS exclusive 138.8 vs SS 91.7 (and sinking)
does it mean that IS is doing much better than SS???
if so, IS is still not doing badly. just wondering. perharps exclusives can tune us in on that.
(thx in advance)
IS has a much larger turnover than SS - or it always did and I assume it still does. From the point of view of SS that means there is a lot of market share to be fought for. From the point of view of IS it means it is still the market leader. From the point of view of exclusive contributors the situation has deteriorated rapidly, not long ago the exclusive rating suggested that exclusivity generated more for contributors than independence ever could, now you only have to submit to the top four to do better on average than you could on iStock .... if the stats can really be interpreted in that way, which may be dubious.
1040
« on: September 14, 2014, 09:23 »
The simple solution is to look at the number of ordinary iS sales you had last month and how much they made and then divide the earnings by the volume to find out what your average sale value is. In my case it was 80 or 90c.
Mind you, I have not yet had a single sale on the new system.
1041
« on: September 14, 2014, 04:09 »
It seems a rather blinkered and silly view to suggest that any distributor selling our work does "literally nothing". The equal and opposite view would be that photographers don't deserve to get paid when all they did was press a button. No doubt successful distributors are engaged in negotiating deals, advertising their services and wining and dining potential clients, among other things. It's a job that has lots of behind the scenes skills, work and expenses, just like creating images does.
[Come to think of it, that seems to be almost exactly the degree of respect that some agencies, like Fotolia and perhaps Veer, have for contributors].
1042
« on: September 14, 2014, 03:56 »
Might be worth noting that the iStock exclusive earnings rating on the right, which was more than 300 last year and about 150 last month is now down to 138.8 as of Sept 14. It will be interesting to see where it goes next month.
1043
« on: September 14, 2014, 03:49 »
I know that a prostitute with a better make-up will have more customers, but can somebody explain me how a change of interface can/will raise the contributors earnings?
Well, as you say, maybe more customers. If you are talking about the whole restructuring then it will raise earnings for me (if the sales remain the same) because my average sale commission was less than the minimum commission under the new structure. It seems designers and exclusives will get their earnings cut. So it depends on the individual's circumstances.
1044
« on: September 13, 2014, 10:08 »
iStock's back online. The buyers' interface is certainly simpler, for what it's worth.
1045
« on: September 13, 2014, 06:28 »
Crap, I forgot to cash out my money before the maintenance. Hopefully the site is not down until Monday.
I tried to cash mine before this week's payoneer cut-off, but the site kept freezing so I didn't manage it. And I didn't read Jo Ann's sage advice until it was too late.
1046
« on: September 12, 2014, 02:57 »
I can't help wondering if Fotolia's beggar-my-neighbour industry-destroying strategy is working.
1047
« on: September 10, 2014, 13:01 »
Except, from what I've seen, the photos aren't actually good.
1048
« on: September 06, 2014, 02:50 »
Amazing!
They probably need to get it out of the way ahead of the big shake-up.
1049
« on: September 05, 2014, 05:23 »
For indies, they just become a mid-low tier agency and get uploads according to their new lower priority status.
Yup!
Yup! Indies just took another cut.
I don't follow this - the pay per dl will increase considerably (at least in my case). Am I missing something?
1050
« on: September 04, 2014, 09:52 »
I always thought by far the biggest market in the world of image usage are the small to medium sized businesses in the world. But it looks like istock has given up on them.
Most of their images at most sizes are going to be less costly. The pricing is broadly similar to Shutterstock pricing but with a better selection of content. The minimum spend is less than at Shutterstock. Their subscription plans are at a lower entry price point than Shutterstock.
What specifically makes you say that they have given up on small to medium sized businesses ?
I guess you mean most exclusive images. As I said earlier, people buying my images will on average pay two or three times more than they do at present per dl.
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 47 ... 206
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
