|
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 - pancaketom
Pages: 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 51 ... 91
1126
« on: March 07, 2014, 10:37 »
I have noticed DT seems to run in 3 modes. No sales, subs sales, and credit sales. If it was running credit sales over the weekend and you just got no sales, and then in no sales mode during the week - you get no or low sales for a week. If it is in subs mode you get mostly subs and that is a pretty low $ total. Last month was pretty good for sales at DT for me, but I still had a gap with no sales from 2/19 to 2/25 - this is with almost 2000 (granted mostly LCV) images up.
Not that it doesn't suck to have a week with no sales, but unfortunately I don't see that as particularly out of the ordinary at DT these days.
1127
« on: March 06, 2014, 22:33 »
I recently bought a house so I could take pictures of it so I am writing the cost off as a business expense. When I am done taking pictures can I live in it? Now if only the sites would accept pics of cars too.
(no, I am not serious)
1128
« on: March 06, 2014, 19:06 »
I don't see this as a smart move for Getty, but it might be for Carlyle to wring a bunch more $ from it while unloading it's weakened carcass. If they time things right they could get serious $ from a FB or Google for it. I hope that the so called real professionals (and I don't mean previous microstockers here) working with Getty manage to send them a strong signal over this. There could be a huge heap of high quality content looking for a new home really soon and a clever agency could really profit from that.
1129
« on: March 06, 2014, 10:47 »
It would be interesting to see what they will pay. If you get 20% of the (cost -printing -shipping -frame -anything else Getty can think of) it could be pretty low by the time it gets to the artist.
I wonder how this will effect FAA and others.
Still, that does seem like a good use of a good domain name and certainly not the worst news we have heard from them this week.
1130
« on: March 06, 2014, 10:41 »
This explains the move some time ago to increase the allowable submission rates from a very controlled few to near infinity.
I don't think so. I think that had more to do with Thinkstock since the submission rates were mainly changed for nonexclusives, for nearly all exclusives you could already upload more than you could produce before the change.
I think it related to the new Istock sub. model:
Theoretically If Istock will accept all indi images available on SS + subscription model + exclusive images SS does not have - why should one buy from SS if he can buy same content + exclusive content from Istock?
because they can't get all of my pics of course (or Sean's or plenty of others who have been forced out or given up w/ Getty)
1131
« on: March 04, 2014, 15:54 »
I suppose the longer it is down the more of a discount they will offer buyers on our images.
1132
« on: March 03, 2014, 20:03 »
Let me translate from iSpeak
thinkstock isn't shafting everyone enough. so we are starting a subs plan for istock that shafts people there too. Since a lot of the content from exclusives isn't available on main, we will move it there to shaft them too. Of course you get no RC for this shafting. We will mix the sales reporting in with the PP reporting so it will be harder for you guys to notice when we short change you, don't worry, if we accidentally overpay you we will claw it back eventually.
we are launching this in April, expect all sorts of things to be messed up as we roll this out.
1133
« on: March 03, 2014, 14:07 »
Actually, the shutting down someone elses portfolio is a more likely scenario - sign up for a subs plan - possibly from a nearby location and start downloading their port. 25 a day, every day. I am sure SS would notice in short order, and shut you down, and possibly them too. They would have a lot of fun trying to explain how they don't even know you.
1134
« on: March 03, 2014, 12:02 »
With the huge profits, wonderful stock growth, great CEO, etc... isn't it almost a given that contributors will get more of a share rather than less?
LOL
LOL
ROFL
Stop! You're killing me!
LOL
They could go with the Costco model instead of the Sam's club plan for maximum return for investors. Keeping the contributors happy might actually increase long term profits.
1135
« on: March 03, 2014, 11:58 »
I'll help them with the programming. Take the sale price. multiply by .5, report that and put that in our accounts. Done, easy.
1136
« on: March 03, 2014, 11:55 »
I suppose the other thing to consider is that all of the advances that go into phone cameras can also be put into high end pro cameras keeping them at least a step ahead.
A more reasonable argument is that a phone can take a picture that looks fine on facebook or instagram or whatever and if that is all you want or need then a big pro camera is overkill.
1137
« on: March 01, 2014, 23:19 »
post that on the IS forum - or better yet, submit it for sale. hee hee
1138
« on: March 01, 2014, 11:50 »
Other than the physics, there are ways around the 2 biggest downsides I see to non camera cameras - the shutter lag and the low light performance. I presume that better electronics will fix the latter, and software could fix the former - like show a slow motion video and you pick the moment to save the photo from.
Also people aren't going to want to pay big $ for a pro photographer if they show up with a phone.
1139
« on: March 01, 2014, 10:56 »
Better than Jan, but nothing special. It was slightly over the monthly average for 2013 but less than Feb 2013. In order of $ the top 4 were SS, Alamy, DT, Veer. A number of the little guys had 0 sales months.
SS is still the top producer but continues to fall in # of dl and with less of the big paying sales in $. It is more like 2011 in $ and 2010 in sales #.
1140
« on: March 01, 2014, 10:44 »
seems like everyone i know is affected. should be 9000 only.
is there anyone on this forum, who is selling via PP on iStock and who is NOT affected by this "backfire" action?
I am, but only because I removed enough files so I made barely over $10 in pp during that time.
1141
« on: February 28, 2014, 15:01 »
Either that or Getty is trying to get cute. Stock manipulation seems more likely, although anyone with a really big position would come under pretty extreme scrutiny. Hopefully sales are not too drastically effected.
1142
« on: February 28, 2014, 14:58 »
the norm seems to be about 3 weeks give or take a few weeks for me for photos. In other words, don't hold your breath.
1143
« on: February 28, 2014, 14:51 »
When items in a store are priced differently, you pay the register price, even when its more expensive
Actually, not in some places. They're only supposed to charge you the displayed price. Some states have laws about that:
https://www.google.com/search?q=register+has+wrong+price
It is like this in most of the countries that I know.
I am surprised if it is different in Ireland because I thought that it was the same for the whole European Union.
Charging something different than a displayed price is basically scamming the customer, and should be punishable by law. They used to do this frequently to tourists in some establishments in commie and ex-commie countries, they got instantly blacklisted by embassies and consulates +threats of political sanctions if it keeps happening... it all disappeared very quickly 
Not if its an honest mistake
OK.. kept my gob shut throughout this debacle... but now that i've 'earnt' my $800 dollars (4 grand plus cut to IS) plus this month, Ron mate... how much can I spend and how much shall I keep tucked under my mattress for another 3 months just in case IS have another monumental mess up? Just asking 
about 4800 should be safe.
1144
« on: February 25, 2014, 19:53 »
So what is the current tally of sites that will close in the next month?
1. Pixmac
2. Photos.com
3. Jupiter Images
4. Punchstock
....any more? We are only 2 months into the year and 4 agencies gone!
but all of those are owned by other sites now? I guess the surest way of removing competition is buying them out and then closing them.
1145
« on: February 25, 2014, 16:31 »
One of the advantages of removing most of my images - I am under the 10$ threshold - or maybe there were no overpayments to me at all - the # and $ of the sales are about average for the year, although one was for 4$ or so instead of the usual paltry sum.
Of course it is an accounting nightmare - any time you even think you overpaid someone that is an accounting nightmare - when it is such a mess that it takes months to come up with a guess as to how much and to whom...
They say never to ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to incompetence, but IS does push it to the limit. I am sure that had the error gone the other way we still might not have known about it. In fact maybe that is the case for July or Nov...
They could have completely ruled the microstock universe, and instead they are doing this sort of thing... sad really.
1146
« on: February 24, 2014, 19:21 »
Sounds like a perfect time to close your account and leave them holding the bag.
1147
« on: February 24, 2014, 16:10 »
How did they reduce the number? did they just write off the small fry or what? Their accounting and reporting does leave something to be desired.
1148
« on: February 24, 2014, 11:48 »
Are the free comps only for the "sensitive use" buyers?
1149
« on: February 23, 2014, 17:33 »
Is this deal worse than the normal subs sales - probably not. Plus they probably aren't getting or using full resolution pics.
Could FB have afforded a deal that was better for the artists - probably, but they didn't have to. I'd rather get 25 to 30% or .38 from SS licensing it than 15-19% or .28 from Getty (or whatever they are paying these days).
The point about the ability to change the pics every day on the ads is one that could work well with a sub site too.
1150
« on: February 22, 2014, 11:53 »
[snip]
we need to wake up, and it starts by never supporting a subscription site of any sort. this is the kiss of death for all of us.
we as contributors need to start thinking long term and sustainable, all of us, and taking action now because we all know the agencies won't.
ok, so no Getty, no Corbis, no SS, no DT, no FT, It looks like mostly relatively closed shops, Alamy (unless you consider NU to be like subs) boutique RM, and self hosting are the only options then? I am sure there are others, but it would be hard to do much more than pay the electric bill without managing to get into one of the semi closed shops. (actually in general I agree with your basic thesis that the agencies will continue to do well and the photographers less so based on the basic principles of supply and demand). That makes much more sense than expecting the agencies to suddenly become unprofitable as was perhaps previously predicted.
Pages: 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 51 ... 91
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
