|
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 - cthoman
Pages: 1 ... 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 ... 145
1076
« on: July 25, 2013, 14:06 »
But we ought to come up with some zingy term that expresses our frustration with the way they currently control the market and exploit creative producers.
How about "sites I no longer do business with"? 
1077
« on: July 25, 2013, 14:00 »
I think people should relax as Leo said and watch this thing blossom over time..
I always thought time was one of the more powerful SEO tools.
1078
« on: July 24, 2013, 18:19 »
If Shutterstock would offer exclusivity they would wipe out a lot of agencies indeed. Jon has the power to do that. If he wanted to.
It might be nice for the rest of us because we'd probably be able to negotiate better rates with the other agencies. I might send out letters the day of the announcement to the other agencies asking if they want to negotiate.
SS doesn't seem to have any interest in it though.
And WHY?!!! SS doesn't have any interest in that - I don t understand - can you give some explanation - it is in their interest - and probably in our interest too...
Because Jon said so. He is not going to offer exclusivity.
Yep, he has said no exclusivity, although I guess you never know when things are going to change.  I don't think SS has a ton of extra cash to offer contributors though, so I'm not sure where the money would come from to sweeten the pot for exclusives. I guess they could implement the Bigstock model and exempt exclusives. But, that would be more of a threat than a perk.
1079
« on: July 24, 2013, 16:37 »
I think I understand. Just because other people carry on supporting greedy sites doesn't mean we all have to. I'm pleased I removed all my best images from istock.
That's pretty much how I feel about it now. I can't babysit everybody in the industry, but I can certainly control where my files go. It may be a longer term strategy, but I think it will pay off in the end.
1080
« on: July 24, 2013, 14:04 »
It's even worse. I suppose that Walmart's suppliers agree the price in advance and it's not changed unless both parties agree.
I don't know about Walmart, but I do know that some major retailers I have dealt with in the past expect the supplier to provide the product in their warehouse and depending on the sales and sales volume they will adjust the price, and if it doesn't sell the supplier has to take it back.
I don't think that is uncommon, then you sell them to liquidators. I don't know a lot about it, but I seem to remember things like that at my last company.
1081
« on: July 24, 2013, 13:51 »
If Shutterstock would offer exclusivity they would wipe out a lot of agencies indeed. Jon has the power to do that. If he wanted to.
It might be nice for the rest of us because we'd probably be able to negotiate better rates with the other agencies. I might send out letters the day of the announcement to the other agencies asking if they want to negotiate. SS doesn't seem to have any interest in it though.
1082
« on: July 24, 2013, 13:16 »
Is the new GM me? Did I get the job and nobody told me?
1083
« on: July 24, 2013, 11:34 »
yep, pure semantics
That's kind of how I feel about it, but I can't really complain about the possibility of somebody else joining my little lazy picket line.
1084
« on: July 24, 2013, 11:31 »
1085
« on: July 24, 2013, 10:54 »
Done. What do I win?
1086
« on: July 24, 2013, 10:52 »
Did you get paid out before reaching payout? I'm thinking of closing my account but I thought I'd lose my balance...
I got a final payout under the payout amount when I closed my account. I had to pay a small fee, but they were pretty friendly and helpful about it. I recommend sending them an email to ask.
1087
« on: July 24, 2013, 09:59 »
So now Istock is leading the industry? I thought you all were saying Shutterstock was number 1. Interesting that you don't think lower prices has anything to do with SS even though they are still much lower than Istock and Fotolia. Is it possible that Istock and Fotolia are lowering prices to compete with the king of low prices, Shutterstock?
If you know what's going on, feel free to explain it to me because I don't get it. It looks like they all are just trying to spite contributors and drive us all away. But instead of running for the hills we just take it.
1088
« on: July 24, 2013, 09:35 »
I'm going to delete all my images... oh wait, I already did that. It's very kind of Fotolia to reaffirm I made the right decision.
1089
« on: July 23, 2013, 16:08 »
There was a time when I thought that by increasing the costs and the commission payments iSTock risked wrecking the model, driving away buyers and pulling in people who would not have bothered when we were getting 10c 20c and 30c or evern 20c, 40c, and 60c per DL.
I'm starting to think again that I was right. Standards would have been much lower, the factories would never have appeared and the RPI might not have shrunk to where it is now. I'm not sure, of course, but I do wonder...
I think istock was right that the industry can bear higher prices, they just got it wrong about which companies could do it and the context in which it would be accepted by buyers. They established themselves as a microstock company but ventured too far out of that realm. When really what they should have done was create something separate, like SS is doing with Offset.
Of course it is yet to be seen whether Offset will work, but at least SS isn't ruining their existing business by trying to change it up too drastically.
There's a proper place for what istock wanted to do. That place just wasn't istock.
Didn't they already have an Offset? It's called Getty. I agree though. They were doing a good job selling higher priced content until they broke it.
1090
« on: July 22, 2013, 13:40 »
Actually I'm not wrong, because 2010 was only three years ago. Leaf's amazement reflects the state of knowledge up to when that poll came out. I'm not certain of the timing, but I think that 2010 would just about have given time for the effect of splitting the commission regimes for indes and exclusives to come into effect.
I think that is the timeline. They raised the commissions for exclusives January 2010, then started RC credits January of 2011.
1091
« on: July 22, 2013, 13:27 »
Personally, I would give the greatest weighting to my own sales at different places if I was trying to make that decision...
That's pretty much all you can do. The poll doesn't mean anything to my personal numbers. It's not even remotely close.
1092
« on: July 22, 2013, 12:03 »
Is Being exclusive the way to go?
Yes, if you don't like money.
Have you looked at the polls here? It seems to me that you can contribute to 20 sites and make 68% of what exclusives are making, also exclusive poll numbers are kept lower than all the others (very few nonexclusives are making more than $2500/month on any one site while many exclusives are).
Personally, it never seem to add up to me to make the switch (except for those 8 or 9 months before they introduced RC credits). I'm glad I didn't go exclusive though. In hindsight, it would have worked out poorly.
1093
« on: July 22, 2013, 09:00 »
And if you question the security of Symbiostock, you question the security of WordPress.
I think that is a valid concern. My website was hacked a few weeks ago, and they probably got in through Wordpress. I'm not sure if there is a way to guarantee protection from any malicious intent, but Wordpress may be an easier target for people that know how to do these things. So, I think it is definitely something to think about.
1094
« on: July 21, 2013, 17:51 »
If you deactivate your last image, does that automatically close your account? I would think you could have an account, even with 0 active images. If they don't automatically close it, then deactivate the last image but keep the account. You won't be doing business with them, so no harm to you. And if there are positive changes in the future, you can reactivate.
I deleted my last image about 2 years ago, and my account is still open.
1095
« on: July 21, 2013, 16:42 »
If you delete your last image, you'll lose all your stats. Although, you've probably lost some of that already when you deleted images. I like to keep my accounts open rather than close them, but that is just a personal preference.
1096
« on: July 21, 2013, 12:45 »
I have some pretty fancy #2 pencils. They have erasers on the end.
1097
« on: July 20, 2013, 14:07 »
Wow, didn't think anyone would pull an Ayn Rand in here 
Yeah, I couldn't resist. Something about a bunch of capitalists moving to an island to start a utopian society free of regulations cracks me up every time I think about it. And, it always seems so appropriate for micro.
1098
« on: July 20, 2013, 13:11 »
Makes sense. Where do you envision the pros going? Staying in micro, or migrating to RM and/or small boutique agencies?
It's hard to say. I think that is what is killing my theory is that not a lot exists to go to. It's all very Ayn Rand too. The whole Stocksy and Offset popping up near each other was interesting. I like the idea of personal shops or Symbiostock type stuff being a factor. I'd love to see somebody like Dreamstime or Canstock just announce they no longer wanted to compete with Shutterstock anymore (since they really aren't anyway) and build micro 2.0. But, that seems like pure fantasy. It's probably easier to build a new site and experiment with it like Offset.
1099
« on: July 20, 2013, 12:34 »
Interesting. We seem to have two different schools of thought here. One is that this business is no longer sustainable for hobbyists and will be left to the high end pros. The other is that this business is no longer sustainable for the high end pros, and will eventually only be populated mainly by hobbyists.
I tend to believe the second. Honestly, Lev, do you believe you can continue to spend 2-3k per shoot and make a profit? Regardless of volume, I don't see how it will be possible in the long term.
"The meek will inherit the Earth", and the hobbyists, who don't need to see a profit, will most likely eventually inherit the microstock market.
I believe it is already happening.
I actually think both will happen. That the two will split off at some point. It just seems like the natural evolution.
1100
« on: July 20, 2013, 10:48 »
Thanks for everyone's comments! Really brings to light many things I was in the dark about.
Dolgachov--totally agree with you on many things. This is a business. The whole point of my post was not to complain about the high costs in the U.S. and other European countries. Rather, I wished to understand the business model of contributors with large volume and high quality. I find Yuri's business model to be very intriguing, and if anything, his scale of production should be emulated---not his work.
It's not just about taxes though. It's about standard of living. In the U.S., a good cup of coffee from Starbucks can cost $2 vs. in India a good cup of coffee is $.20. Or take for example, my friend who lives in Moldova. His apartment monthly rent costs $300--the same apartment in the U.S. costs $3000. You can't deny the point that if you have some money saved up in the U.S., you could stay afloat longer in another country with a lower standard of living, allowing you to put in more work hours for your photography rather than trying to do this in the background of a part-time job. It is true you need your own creative ideas...but it sure as hell helps A LOT to have lower costs, lower taxes, and lower standard of living. That's why U.S. corporations move overseas--to increase profits.
Cost of living really isn't that bad in the U.S. It is not the cheapest, but it is also nowhere near the most expensive.
Pages: 1 ... 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 ... 145
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
