|
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 - bunhill
Pages: 1 ... 47 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 57 ... 62
1276
« on: May 20, 2012, 04:58 »
1. Techno Cash2. Getty has annual revenues of almost $1bn. It is a portfolio of brands across many different markets. It seems hugely unlikely that any little brand would buy them. Especially a company with no experience in many of their markets. ^ that isn't me being for or against any company. I tend to think they are all interesting and often amazing companies and brands in different ways. It's exciting seeing how it all evolves and what happens next. 3. The exciting Shutterstock IPO is not a certainty until it happens. Suppose the markets are way down before then. Suppose the Facebook share price collapses over the next months. There are all sorts of factors which can affect sentiment.
1277
« on: May 19, 2012, 08:02 »
My tips -
1. Scan at the highest native resolution of the scanner even if you end up down sizing to probably about 6mp.. You will want the highest possible resolution for retouching.
2. Don't confuse scanning resolution with DPI.
3. Whatever scanner you buy make sure that it is compatible with Vuescan. All other scanning software is horrible. Then make dng format RAW scans and open them in Lightroom. - the point being don't have the scanner software make any changes to the levels, curves, colours etc - just have it output what the scanner actually recorded (most affordable scanners are fixed focus and fixed exposure).
4. There is a very steep learning curve around making good scans. If the images really are stock worthy and you want them up in a hurry then pay to have them drum scanned and retouched by a professional bureau.
1278
« on: May 19, 2012, 04:59 »
1279
« on: May 17, 2012, 13:02 »
My portfolio currently earns about 3x more at SS as it does on FT
Another question for you since as you are good at this  - SS earnings are more or less static according to the IPO despite all of the money they have been spending building revenue. So doesn't that mean that it has basically been costing them money to sell so many pictures - i.e. that greater sales do not necessarily add up to greater earnings ?
1280
« on: May 16, 2012, 14:49 »
ETA: I have no idea why the link I have posted is tiny and so far down the page.
1281
« on: May 16, 2012, 11:12 »
giving Fotolia an enterprise value of $450m.
.....
The deal values Fotolias equity at about 10 times earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation So does that mean that Fotolia's earnings are $45m ? Isn't earnings the same as actual profit - ie revenue less costs ? If so then Fotolia is earning more than Shutterstock - even after all of the money which SS has spent on growing revenues.
^ that cannot be correct can it ? So what does this mean ?] ETA: I see my schoolboy error. Even so !
1282
« on: May 16, 2012, 10:45 »
1283
« on: May 16, 2012, 10:32 »
1284
« on: May 15, 2012, 15:06 »
You two are clearly right. Thanks.
1285
« on: May 15, 2012, 14:51 »
Not arguing and you may well be right. Can you explain a little more ?
My thinking was this:
Revenue cost increased 13.2 of which 10.8 was royalties. Therefore I was assuming that royalties are 10.8/13.2 of total revenue cost.
Aren't the percentages are a red herring ?
1286
« on: May 15, 2012, 14:32 »
10.8 / 13.2 x 45.5 = 37.227
Not sure how The Atlantic is getting their number.
1287
« on: May 15, 2012, 14:15 »
- if they use the money for something that adds value to the company, such as buying a once high flying competitor at a bargain basement price, well, maybe.
DT ?
1288
« on: May 15, 2012, 13:54 »
I thought it was curious that they describe themselves as a "market place" but that Bigstock who they bought were an agency. I wonder what the difference is.
1289
« on: May 15, 2012, 13:39 »
It's in The Atlantic article I linked to above Cobalt. A guesstimate at least.
I think 39.3 million in royalties is too high, that only leaves 6.2 million for 70 employees, infrastructure, renting an office in new york, plus other expenses. The employees alone could cost more than that.
So do you think their contributors are earning less than $2.62 per portfolio image per year on average ? It seems a very small number.
1290
« on: May 15, 2012, 13:31 »
It's in The Atlantic article I linked to above Cobalt. A guesstimate at least.
1291
« on: May 15, 2012, 11:36 »
the annual commission per image is probably a tad less than $2.50. Obviously the longer-term contributors can be expected to earn more and the newbies somewhat less than that average figure.
The Atlantic roughly agrees with your estimate: 39.3/15m = $2.62 per portfolio image per year Atlantic: my read of their SEC filing is that they paid out $39.3 million in royalties to 35,000 contributors. So the mean contributor is making something like $1,100 a year by posting their work on the site. (I don't know exactly what the distribution looks like; we only know that no entity received more than 10 percent of the royalties paid out.)
1292
« on: May 14, 2012, 16:56 »
They have only announced an intention. So contrary to the title of this thread it is not done.
1293
« on: May 11, 2012, 08:15 »
which also ultimately made them look evil and backwards.
oh well that's another freetards' myth !
how can it be evil and backward to make a product and sell it for a profit ?
but no, the freetards want free music, free movies, free photos, free news, free books, free software, free games, and finally free beer and free puss-y as well.
now, go in your local pub and ask for a free bar and see the answer...
Most people are not asking for free content. If you provide a mechanism which enables people to pay for how they want to use content then in many, probably most, cases they will. If you fail to be ahead of the curve on that then you are going to find it difficult to get people to pay for what they have become used to getting for free. This is why it is important that the industry works with rather than against sites like Pinterest which have their own momentum. You are missing the point wrt the music industry which failed in the first instance to keep up to date with actually behavior and use - they failed to provide a mechanism for people to legally download music. They could have owned and monetized Napster instead of spending years in court. The consequence is that Apple now tells them what to do. If something has its own inevitability because it is a strong idea (eg PInterest) then it is daft to fight it. You have to find ways to incorporate it. Did you also once oppose microstock btw ?
1294
« on: May 10, 2012, 10:31 »
And it worked. It scared the heck out of people and encouraged them to use legitimate sources, like iTunes, and all the other new ways that are legal.
With respect, it didn't really work. The music industry wasted years on shutting down Napster and similar and going after the users which also ultimately made them look evil and backwards. They could have owned the download market and much earlier by working to give people what they wanted. iTunes came along later - Apple, who ultimately helped rescue the music industry, had to more or less tell them how things were going to be. (And sooner or later that will come back to bite the labels since they will ultimately probably be completely disintermediated.)
1295
« on: May 10, 2012, 04:45 »
That is exactly why I don't agree with Pininterest and similars
The thing is clearly such a strong idea, and is already so popular amongst opinion makers, that it has its own gravity and inevitable momentum. Therefore industries should find ways of working with rather than against it. It's like the tide. In the full version of the interview with Jonathan Klein which I posted on its own thread here he talks about how the music industry, after failing to embrace inevitable change, ended up "doing something which was unspeakable" when "they sued their fans and customers".
1296
« on: May 09, 2012, 14:12 »
Jonathan Klein in that interview seems to have a good understanding of how to deal softly with these sorts of issues. It's clearly not in anyone's interest to kill something which has so much gravity.
1297
« on: May 09, 2012, 06:32 »
Since it is relevant - here again is the part of the recent interview with Jonathan Klein of Getty Images in which he gives their view on Pinterest etc. It seems a very balanced and erudite perspective. (appx 4 mins)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0mSYjL44n0[/youtube]
1298
« on: May 08, 2012, 08:49 »
I think about switching to Mac whenever I need to upgrade, but I can never justify the extra expense for a slower system.
Do you factor in re-sale / used prices - i.e. how much you will get back on your equipment when you have finished with it ?
Eg - in my experience a used 5 years old Macbook will sell for something like 1/3 original price on eBay. In good condition and well advertised it will go for more (especially if somewhere along the way you upgraded the drive and RAM using OEM parts). Even broken Apple equipment and parts have a good resale value. See how much a 2006 Mac Pro desktop is still worth for example.
All of our equipment gets recycled like this.
You know what I hadn't even thought about that. I haven't ever tried to resell my old PCs either. I have a load in the loft. I wouldn't let them go without taking the HDs out and smashing them with sledge hammer, and I never get round to doing that. I guess I would run into the same problem with a Mac, not wanting to sell it on with the hard drive in there. I don't trust formatting the drive to completely remove the data beyond retrieval.
It is easy enough to fit a new drive and it invariably adds value for minimal cost.
1299
« on: May 08, 2012, 07:07 »
I think about switching to Mac whenever I need to upgrade, but I can never justify the extra expense for a slower system.
Do you factor in re-sale / used prices - i.e. how much you will get back on your equipment when you have finished with it ? Eg - in my experience a used 5 years old Macbook will sell for something like 1/3 original price on eBay. In good condition and well advertised it will go for more (especially if somewhere along the way you upgraded the drive and RAM using OEM parts). Even broken Apple equipment and parts have a good resale value. See how much a 2006 Mac Pro desktop is still worth for example. All of our equipment gets recycled like this.
1300
« on: May 02, 2012, 15:18 »
Lol
Pages: 1 ... 47 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 57 ... 62
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
