|
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 - MichaelJayFoto
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 27
126
« on: September 02, 2015, 02:17 »
A decent smartphone should be as good as a compact from a few years ago and I have seen posters from my old compact. Just started with Stockimo, like the look of that collection.
Isn't that the app by Alamy where they only pay you 20% of the license fees whereas you get 50% when uploading with them through their website? This was something that had me confused when I had a look at it. Honestly asking for your experience and why you made that decision to supply them with images through the app.
127
« on: September 02, 2015, 02:14 »
Why would anyone purchase photos taken with mobile phone? People can snap them them themselves! You must shoot very, very boring images of things that are easy to shoot then.
128
« on: August 31, 2015, 01:27 »
Do your photos taken with mobile phones sell well? For the most part, mine do not. They are shot well with my iPhone but are offered in Small, Medium and Large sizes, and I believe buyers may know they are iPhone shots or are expecting the XL, 2XL and 3XL from my Canon Full frame.
I wonder if there is a trend for buyers at iStock to mostly buy photos that come in the larger sizes.
Apparently Getty doesn't seem to see a problem with the smaller resolutions or the filtering, they have added more than 600,000 files through their partnership with EyeEm so far: http://www.gettyimages.de/search/2/image?collections=eym&excludenudity=false&family=creative&license=rf&sort=bestI have very few smartphone images in microstock but they pop up every now and then in sales notifications. I also sold images shot with my iPhone through Stocksy and in macrostock for good money. One of them is being used as part of a book cover next year. So customers seem not to have big issues with using those images they like, even if they "only" come in 8 megapixels instead of 20 or 50 MP (in fact some of my images were shot/processed with Hipstamatic which only provides 2,400 x 2,400 = less than 6 MP). What I have found a problem with some contributors, though, is the way of thinking: Customers will not license images just because they were shot with an iPhone (or Android). They still look for the image that works best for their purpose. Sometimes they look specifically for an Instagram style images but the content still needs to be what they need. An Instagram image of a random flower in your backyard is still not going to become a best seller just because it's a smart phone image.
129
« on: August 27, 2015, 10:52 »
I am wondering and would like to ask you: Are you getting paid by an entity connected to Getty Images for your efforts to discredit competitors whenever you get the chance to?
...[fill in useless stuff]...
Is there a reason why you reject giving an answer to a direct question in return for all the information you are getting to all your questions?
130
« on: August 27, 2015, 02:15 »
Are non-exclusives seeing any solid growth in subs sales at istock? Given that the growth was most likely to happen during the first 12 months since introduction last spring plus the enormous growth of the collection in the same period plus the summer break plus the small number of images I uploaded in the last year, I would say I am seeing what I was expecting to see: Subscriptions were growing constantly until about March/April, and are now somewhat flat with a small decline. Currently my credit sales are at about 10% of the download volume, subscription and partner program about equally sharing the other 90% of downloads. Royalties are about one third coming through each of those three categories.
131
« on: August 27, 2015, 00:28 »
I can see earnings on Shutterstock. If I understand correctly you see the column listed as Single & Other Downloads and have concluded that Two Image On Demand sales don't go there, is that right? One if "On Demand", the other is "Single & Other". It's quite simple once you understood it. Obviously you are not understanding it, most likely not even willing to understand it even when it is being explained to you by several people with far more experience in this matter than you have. I am wondering and would like to ask you: Are you getting paid by an entity connected to Getty Images for your efforts to discredit competitors whenever you get the chance to?
132
« on: August 19, 2015, 03:29 »
I was thinking about it but how do we do that? Convince five people to stop uploading their images to whatever agency sells best for them. If you can manage to do that, I'm sure you can manage the rest.
133
« on: August 19, 2015, 00:40 »
I dont understand why our sale commisions are so low in image sales? e.g. one images are sold to 1 credits equally $10 but our sale commision only $1.5, what about other $8.5 ?... I wonder is it so costly to being agent to selling our images? why our earnings are limited by only 15% or something like very low amounts on image sales ? I dont know is this a good sample but I get 60% sale commision from 3d model sale on a 3d model sale site which is in the wery similar sale sector and which has wery similarly sale contours.
In the earlier days of iStock being a number one success, they sold such volume that contributor income was nice - even with low percentages. Even earlier, before Getty, the percentages were a bit better but not a lot.
With the Getty purchase of iStock (while iS was on top), Getty effectively dropped the commissions and used that money to pay back the Getty investors. Now that iS is no longer the top microstock agency the lower sales AND lower commissions are obvious to us contributors. But Getty is tight for money and can't see a way (or doesn't want to see a way) to advance the contributors. Further, there are so many contributors that positive changes would hardly be felt by us in the ranks. So Getty business decisions keep us in bad times while they struggle with their own bad times.
While your explanation is accurate, it isn't the full picture. It explains the overall low commissions but not why it needs to be 15% for non-exclusives. We can't forget that the iStock exclusivity system rewards people signing up their imagery for exclusive distribution by paying out higher commissions. As a matter of fact, 35 or 40% of royalties is more than what you earn at most other places (though even someone at 40% does not really get 40% any more given the lower rates for GI sales and the unknown percentages for the subscription sales). But Getty/iStock still have to compete with Shutterstock (which pays out somewhere between 25 and 30% if I read their financial statements correctly), and the cost of marketing has been rising the tighter the market gets. So they could not really afford to pay out more to contributors than Shutterstock does. So they have to pay out lower royalties for some people to be able to pay out more than average for their top exclusives. Simply said: In a way, non-exclusive contributors subsidize the exclusive contributors for their decision.
134
« on: August 18, 2015, 12:57 »
It would also be very unprofessional to suddenly double the price. He/She should have sorted the terms and usage up front. It's common sense. Excellent. Or we could stick with the actual situation and not a hypothetical "should have, it's common sense"-comment that never ever helped anyone.
135
« on: August 18, 2015, 00:28 »
I would say a 100% surcharge over your "non-exclusive price" would be justified.
136
« on: August 17, 2015, 05:14 »
I had a few Christmas dls lately. Is it time already to upload new Christmas images?
I had Christmas downloads in February. And April. And June.
137
« on: August 16, 2015, 03:14 »
As a newbie, i try to start my career as photographer, I know it takes long time to be a successful photographer.Due to my limited budget (about 2k dollar), would you please suggest me the camera and lens i should buy?I will mainly take photos for people indoor and outdoor.By the way i want be one of the contributor in microstock industry in later future.Thanks in advance.
wish you guys have good sales. Have a look around if you can get a used 2 or 3 year old DSLR. Maybe not the lowest entry level, something in the mid range - Canon 60D or 7D maybe. Get a 50mm lens - you can get a f/1.8 for most systems between $100 and $200. Learn to shoot with that system first before spending more money. Invest in a flash, something off-brand like a Yongnuo, will cost you another $100-200 when you include a remote trigger. Learning about light, lighting, composition and model direction is far more important than having a really good, new, expensive camera.
138
« on: August 13, 2015, 01:36 »
Not a big issue, though. It takes only about six weeks to get 250 regular downloads if you upload 20,000 good stock images.
I guess that was an irony, wasn't it? 
Thanks for your input though!
Kind of. Or maybe not. It's based on actual numbers. So if you can't manage to upload 20,000 stock images quickly, you can at least deduct realistically how much longer it will take you.
139
« on: August 12, 2015, 11:11 »
Thanks a lot for a tip, this plugin is in fact very cool and useful. Back to subject, it appears to me that what iStock cares about in terms of stats is the DLs from IS directly, for instance, to be eligible for exclusivity (>250 DLs). Therefore, all other sales, including through partner programs, are not taken into account? Yes, PP doesn't count. Subs don't count either. Only regular credit sales do. Not a big issue, though. It takes only about six weeks to get 250 regular downloads if you upload 20,000 good stock images.
140
« on: August 11, 2015, 01:34 »
i was hoping for just that??? compared to shutterstock, as that is the horizon we are comparing with for now. or as you mentioned istock...
is stocksy in the 40% like istock,
or 8 % like alamy. There is no way to make any useful comparison like you do across the microstock agencies because within microstock you just put more or less the same images everywhere. As far as I know that's even true for Alamy (I'm not on there). Whereas all files on Stocksy United are exclusively there. So the percentage will differ extremely between photographers because someone like me has a portfolio size of 300 on Stocksy while 3,000 on microstock. Others have a more equal share. And some may only have 100 on Stocksy and 10,000 in micro. So there is no way to do this. But as I also said before: My RPI is higher on Stocksy than on the microstock sites combined. I still make more money from the 3,000 files I have in microstock than I make with the 300 on Stocksy, though, which I don't find surprising. My highest RPI this is year is coming from macrostock, though I have a tiny portfolio on there.
141
« on: August 10, 2015, 07:30 »
My bad. I ment the end of June. I see one puple bar and it is sold for $104 but I can not see anywhere in the statisics a file sold for $104. I want to know which image is this. Thanks!
Okay... if you are exclusive, you should be able to see GI Sales in a separate section of the MyUploads page: https://secure.istockphoto.com/my-account/my-uploads/gisales/1/royalty/DESCIf you are non-exclusive, it is kind of weird because while there are "Getty 360" or "Getty Plus" sales, they are typically reported as part of the PP (green bars, not purple). As a non-exclusive contributor, you do not have access to the GI Sales page. I guess, the only way to find out would be to contact support. But I'm not even sure if they can look it up.
142
« on: August 10, 2015, 01:32 »
Does anybody know where I can see my G.I. sales? I had one at the end of July but can not see it at PP. As I know this is the place it should show... I'd really love to see which is the file.
Thanks!
How do you know? Where do you see what? End of July hasn't even been processed for the partner program yet, and typically the subscriptions follow and GI Sales are only being processed a bit later in the month.
143
« on: August 09, 2015, 09:38 »
(Do I have to pay more for high resolution images?
Absolutely not. Vectors, or eps files are included in the price of your purchase.)
As it says, the can download the vector within their subscription package. Not all customers do so because not all of them have vector software, so some will only download the JPG.
144
« on: August 09, 2015, 07:20 »
Isnt that the time where the pp-sales should start at istock ?
the last months i always got the numbers from it at the 5th - 8th of a month.
is it later now or did i just made no sales with it.
PP processing has started on Thursday. I am seeing green bars up the 21st of July now. I expect it to finish on Monday or Tuesday and subs starting after that.
145
« on: August 09, 2015, 03:15 »
last thing, i like to know what rating stocksy is to the right of leaf's page here.
is it not showing because they don't rate well???
so far, only you have said anything about earnings. I can't tell how exactly these numbers are calculated. But some assumptions why sites like Stocksy are unlikely to score well: - Many of the photographers on Stocksy are unlikely to be active on MSG because they only supply Stocksy, or only supply Stocksy and other premium sites - Some of the photographers on Stocksy have been active on MSG at the start but were met with the typical negativity around here - Some photographers (and I fall into this category) have stopped filling in their monthly data here because it is becoming more and more meaningless My personal experience with Stocksy sales is very well. The RPI I see is higher than for my microstock images. I also like that I don't get any royalties below $5. And I like it to see that for example in August Stocksy has a sale on Medium sizes - the Medium files are being offered for $20 instead of $25. But the discount is fully covered by "the agency" (which again is owned by us), so I still get my $12.50 for each sale. And the sale seems to work pretty well because I didn't have a Small sale so far this month. And in June I had an Extended License sale which made me $225. Basically a single sale that made more money than my 3,000 images I have on iStock made with credit sales, subscription sales plus partner program combined. It is hard to compare the sales with microstock sites, though. With microstock, I can easily shoot a set of 50 images in an afternoon at home and they are most likely accepted, some of them will sell and some of them won't. With Stocksy I personally have not found a way to spend an afternoon at home and come up with Stocksy-worthy images. I do have an idea where, when and how to shoot images that Stocksy accepts these days, though. Most of these things are valid not only for Stocksy but also for my macrostock images. Though with them I see a lot of smaller sales (the typical <$1 sales everyone gets from Getty and Corbis) but the upper range makes nice returns as well.
146
« on: August 05, 2015, 23:53 »
as i agree mostly with digital66 and michealjay about saschadueser portfolio i don't really agree on the fact that RM agencies sells only high quality pictures....you can find an enorumous amount of TERRIBLE/crappy pictures even on corbis,getty, and what else.... Well, it certainly depends what kind of "quality" you are talking about. If we are talking about technical quality of the pixels, I definitely agree that microstock agencies come from the point "we have to prove that cheap images can still be good", so they have a radical point if it comes to that. Premium sites are much less strict when it comes to focus, noise, pixelation issues. If you master to get 80-90% of your uploads into microstock, your process of shooting and editing images certainly is pretty good and consistent. The content quality is a total different issue. In microstock you can get almost any image improved, as long as it's properly lit and in focus. It doesn't matter if your content is boring. You will have a much harder time to get "boring" images into premium sites these days. Sure you can find crap images on the big sites as well. For one, from the times when customers often had no choice. Secondly, from the collections they bought - they own those images anyways, no point in throwing them away. Thirdly, from hired photographers - again, that content is owned and paid for. I believe that looking for the worst images someone sells is not going to get you anywhere. I think to find out what and how you need to shoot for macrostock, you are better off checking out places like Masterfile, fStop, Plainpicture, Offset, Stocksy... and don't compare the first page of a search to the first page you can find on Shutterstock. Go to page 5 on those places and to page 5 at Shutterstock to see what the actual difference is.
147
« on: August 04, 2015, 04:37 »
and protect themselves against market fluctuations, after spreading their eggs in multiple baskets.
Hopefully, this will drive the IS customers towards agencies that pay better their contributors (= all the other major agencies).
Which micros pay their contributors better than iS pays their exclusives?
When it comes to RPD, none of the micros do. Then again, iS exclusivity wasn't about "micro only" since 2009, and they keep pushing that fact by encouraging contributors to do more than "just" the micro stuff. Comparing to premium sites, I get paid better in RPD than I ever did as an IS exclusive, plus I am much more successful to get my content in there than I ever was with Vetta/Agency. When you compare actual RPD (that is, figuring in all the subscription sales that are easily forgotten these days), I believe for IS exclusives it has dropped to something in the range of $3-4. Correct me if your numbers are different. When it comes to RPI, I am not sure either. I happen to hear the numbers of several iS exclusives every now and then. They are probably still ahead of the overall market. But not by much. And until now I have seen no indication of the trends changing. But yes, it definitely doesn't make sense for all IS exclusives to go non-exclusive. For many of them, it wouldn't pay off to distribute all of their images through all the micro channels.
148
« on: August 04, 2015, 03:32 »
No agency will allow you to do that at their expense.
But all microstock agencies will. This is a classic example of the so called "closed shop" theory.
It happens to be like this because microstock agencies have found a way to make it mostly your expense by basically outsourcing the whole work to you, the photographer - from planning to keywording, you have to provide them with a finished product and they don't have any cost related to your images. They focus on storing the images, their search engines and marketing (which most photographers still underestimate). They focus on automatization, and they are pretty good at it. I don't know what you understand as "closed shop theory". To me that term is related to an employment issue. As a stock photographer you are not employed by anyone. You are a business person providing a product. You deal with others businesses, and all of them are as free as you are to make their own business decisions at any time. You are not bound to any restrictions. You don't have to inherit something from someone else. You don't have to know someone who knows someone (though as with all businesses it helps). You don't have to buy in somewhere. If your product is good enough, other businesses will be willing (or even happy) to distribute them for you. Yes, it's a difference between microstock and macrostock. Microstock agencies mostly don't care about the quality of your product. Their shop is big enough to place almost any product somewhere. If yours proves not to be popular enough, it will soon be hidden in a shelf in the back of the 3rd floor. The only thing they are looking for is that your product isn't so bad that customers will come back and demand their money back.
149
« on: August 03, 2015, 12:10 »
Is it even possible to apply to gettyimages (the macrostock page)?
and what are they actually looking for ? is there any information ?
btw i think nature images they will NOT search for hm ?
++ is it even worth it? the macrostock ?
or is it much better to offer the images in microstock only
anyone here who got nearlier experience - comparison micro- to macrostock ?
Well, let me be straight forward: None of the images I am seeing in your portfolios would get you anywhere into premium collections. They look like a mix of random snap shots and a few of the typical microstock design things that are really hard to explain (yeah, they sell...). Have a look at Getty, Corbis, Stocksy, Offset, Masterfile, Plainpicture, Gallery Stock or any other premium site and see the images they offer on page 1 for any given topic. For any premium collection, you will first have to learn to plan shoots - that includes market research, image styles, model/location/prop organization, lighting properly and post processing. No agency will allow you to do that at their expense. I do make a better RPI at mid and macro stock these days but then again I get fewer images into them than I can get into microstock. Still it's much more fun and challenging.
150
« on: August 02, 2015, 05:44 »
There is some serious revisionist history going on here - iStock's troubles did not come about because of price competition from Shutterstock, IMO
Shutterstock has been around since 2004 and has done nothing but increase its prices over time.
iStock was doing fine raising prices and introducing the Vetta collection (which I was initially very skeptical about) at first. Whether you agreed with every decision the editors made or not, you could see that the more expensive images were not the same as the cheaper ones.
Getty and their two private equity owners started down the road to the current mess when they jacked the prices up significantly, introduced the Agency collection and poured a bunch of old Getty stuff onto iStock - suposedly as "exclusive" even though it wasn't - charging even more (most went in as Agency). Anyone remember the flash picture of the bathroom door? The underexposed fruit slices with black bars down the side and so on?
You can't charge premium prices for content without the buyers understanding the difference between the price tiers. Looking at any search results, any buyer would be hard pressed to figure out why things are priced the way they are.
The reason? The private equity owners wanted out but couldn't given the state of the company and financial markets and so larded Getty with debt to pay themselves a "dividend" of over half a billion dollars.
The business was not able to soak both buyers and contributors to pay these leeches without suffering loss of designers, contributors and bucketloads of goodwill.
Getty/iStock have done this to themselves and Shutterstock has eagerly courted Getty's corporate customers, happily taking advantage of every eff up.
Getty then convinced themselves that the problem was price, and lurched into badly priced subscriptions and even worse one price for all on credit sales - driving away any small design firms they hadn't already lost.
If the problem was price competition, iStock would never have been the leader up until 2010/11 as the other sites were always cheaper. The big slide in iStock has only come since then when its primary competitor, Shutterstock, has only increased prices, not cut them.
Excellent summary. I think the only point you've missed is the role of Bruce Livingstone in all this. You remember when iStock introduced country based pricing that charged more for users in UK and Europe? It was protested, taken back and Bruce apologized. And if I remember correctly, it was about a year after Bruce left that the Agency collection was introduced, the RC levels were introduced. To me the whole thing was the change from someone with an entrepreneurial mindset at the top towards people with calculators and spreadsheets leading the company that was the main cause for all that has developed from then on.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 27
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
