|
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 - tickstock
Pages: 1 ... 47 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 57 ... 151
1276
« on: September 03, 2014, 08:17 »
2. If #1 happens, they lose buyers so the next question is can they attract new buyers to replace them? There are A LOT of small buyers and they will likely end up over at SS. So I see potential volume as a whole going down if pricing goes up too far.
It looks to me like pricing is coming down to compete with SS, I don't see how they would lose buyers to them with the new pricing. SS charges 9 to 15 dollars per image for image packs, 1 credit at iStock probably will be less expensive than that don't you think?
1277
« on: September 02, 2014, 09:59 »
I meant to say multi billion dollar companies use subs like the BBC to name just one. But once more as long as SODs along with overall sales at Shutterstock are increasing or at least staying steady for most contributors there is not going to be enough will to change or even to honestly reflect on the situation. Things will probably have to get worse before they get better.
1278
« on: September 02, 2014, 08:50 »
I see your answer to the question is, you don't have an answer, you just want to wave your hands and shout, Contributors should band together to end subscription sales. You don't have an answer, just a complaint. When pressed for an answer you say "You don't".
HOW? Do you herd cats? The same way you get all photographers to agree what is good for them - you don't.
I think he's saying people should do it but it's not going to happen. I think that's probably correct judging by the responses in this forum. I think it will only happen when all of the sites start doing badly for people and they start to really think about what the industry wide problems as a whole are. Right now too many people say site x is doing badly and that's because of this policy or that when the real issues have less to do with such small things. As long as most people keep doing well at SS nothing will change but if there is ever widespread discontent with Shutterstock I think people start to make changes.
The question is, why should people do it?
Subs opened up new markets, IMO. People who before hadn't thought of buying stock or who couldn't afford stock now saw it as a viable option. Or people who bought a couple of images a month now saw an opportunity to offer clients more choices by subscribing and having access to hundreds of unwatermarked images to present (which we get paid for).
The end of subs means the end of that market, which for many of us is our main market. Eliminating subs won't convince that market to pay more.
You may want to eliminate subs because it's good for you personally, but the folks who visit Microstock Group probably aren't your best target audience for that idea. Macrostock Group, on the other hand...
Multi billion dollar companies are using stock. I bet one cent images with all the rights of an EL would open the market even more, opening the market doesn't necessarily mean it's better for us. Look at DPC, lots of people here are against them but 10 dollars for 10 images probably opens up the market a lot more than a $200/month subscription, is that good for us? Like I said right now most everyone is doing pretty well at Shutterstock, earnings are steady or rising for most contributors and nothing is going to change unless SS starts to do poorly.
1279
« on: September 01, 2014, 19:14 »
I see your answer to the question is, you don't have an answer, you just want to wave your hands and shout, Contributors should band together to end subscription sales. You don't have an answer, just a complaint. When pressed for an answer you say "You don't".
HOW? Do you herd cats? The same way you get all photographers to agree what is good for them - you don't.
I think he's saying people should do it but it's not going to happen. I think that's probably correct judging by the responses in this forum. I think it will only happen when all of the sites start doing badly for people and they start to really think about what the industry wide problems as a whole are. Right now too many people say site x is doing badly and that's because of this policy or that when the real issues have less to do with such small things. As long as most people keep doing well at SS nothing will change but if there is ever widespread discontent with Shutterstock I think people start to make changes.
1280
« on: August 31, 2014, 17:58 »
$3,000 is probably about what the best selling photo makes there in a year.
That sounds reasonable. Nearly $10,000 revenue from 1 photo in 3 or 4 years isn't bad at all.
I don't think you should count on income from an image staying constant for 3 or 4 years, especially the top selling image. It's likely to be duplicated or tastes are likely to change or just the search could change.
1281
« on: August 31, 2014, 14:38 »
$3,000 is probably about what the best selling photo makes there in a year.
1282
« on: August 30, 2014, 09:42 »
That does look good, too bad it's not out yet. I guess I'll just have to wait. Thanks.
1283
« on: August 30, 2014, 06:42 »
The rails on the Stage one never quite matched up for me so, the movement was never smooth. The DP support believe I had a bad batch of rails. I also hated the interface of the motion box it came with it felt like 1970s tech. I just can't recommend the platform. There are so many options now that it just doesn't make sense. Do you have a budget in mind?
I see they are on their 3rd version of the controller, is that what you had or an older one? I'd like to keep my budget under $2,000 for this.
1284
« on: August 28, 2014, 19:32 »
FWIW I first purchased the Stage One setup from DP and while they were very good to work with, the product felt cheap. With my 5D and a 70-200 (heavy lens, yes) it would bow in the middle. This was two sections connected for a total of 4 feet. This combined with a couple of other glitches and I returned the system and bought a Kessler setup. So much happier.
-gl
Thanks for your input. I would like a shorter version of the stage zero but it looks like it only comes as a 6ft piece. How was it using something a little lighter like a wide prime? Did it feel good doing verticals?
1286
« on: August 27, 2014, 15:58 »
It is strange that some of the newest uploads are showing up in the first spot when sorted by most popular even though they've never been downloaded but I guess it's possible that none of the other files have ever been downloaded before.
1287
« on: August 27, 2014, 11:21 »
I don't know why Leaf allows anonymous people to swap names, it doesn't change anything. They are still unwilling to stand behind their posts with a real name.
Good point Mr. Batman. Now how about keeping me out of this I have nothing to add to this discussion, bringing me into it is just distracting from any real issue there might be.
1288
« on: August 26, 2014, 14:29 »
Sue been posting for years here. She uses same name as on Istock. She never change her name or went anonymous. I am confused. By what definition is she a troll?
There was no reason to bring me into this discussion nor to be insulting in doing so. Look around and you can see nearly every day people are leaving this site. Name calling to earn points or for whatever the reason was is not doing anyone any good. I've put her on ignore so hopefully I have no reason to be in this thread anymore and people can discuss the topic at hand without that distraction. Isn't that what this site is for?
1289
« on: August 26, 2014, 11:14 »
The iS-cheerleader has regenerated and feels his old posts weren't relevant any more, so deleted them.
I don't think there are any more in msg. Even the main one on iS is quivering a bit.
Ha. I see you're still trolling on here. I don't think I said the posts weren't relevant, I thought moving on and restarting with more focus on the important things was what I should do. I've moved on, maybe it's time for you to do the same? Hopefully you have more to offer than just trying to insult other people here?
Sorry, did I mention you?
But if the cap fits ...
Ok, you're added to my ignore list. I have no desire to argue with trolls. You can continue your insults without me.
1290
« on: August 26, 2014, 11:02 »
The iS-cheerleader has regenerated and feels his old posts weren't relevant any more, so deleted them.
I don't think there are any more in msg. Even the main one on iS is quivering a bit.
Ha. I see you're still trolling on here. I don't think I said the posts weren't relevant, I thought moving on and restarting with more focus on the important things was what I should do. I've moved on, maybe it's time for you to do the same? Hopefully you have more to offer than just trying to insult other people here?
1291
« on: August 25, 2014, 08:39 »
The solution I would like to see, and I'm repeating myself for your benefit, is minimum 50% commissions from some agency, across the board for any downloads, that are NOT by subscription.
If you just want one agency that does that it already exists, Pond5 has 50% royalties across the board. Alamy also has 50% sales. GL has 52%. I don't think Pond5 or Alamy or GL just existing will solve anything. Please explain what you mean?
Now they just need buyers. The artist side is taken care of. I guess better pay isn't the answer according to you but a protest group or union is what we need. I'd want the truth and more money. Mantis and Cascoly are right. Share information and expose the truth when they try to cheat us.
How would they get buyers if other sites offer the same exact images but can charge less and advertise more because they pay contributors less? I doubt buyers will decide to pay more for the exact same product so contributors will be better taken care of. It seems to me that the only way those sites attract more buyers is if they offer something buyers can't get at the other sites.
1292
« on: August 24, 2014, 11:23 »
http://www.microstock-collective.com/ is an initial attempt to gather some of the information requested above and maintain it for reference - it lets contributors rate agencies and provides other important information
I'm not sure how this will really create change or be able to provide solutions to industry problems when the purpose of the site seems to expressly say it will not do that? From the about section: This collective is nothing more than a collection of voluntarily offered information. The purpose of this site is to clarify the overall consensus of the microstock contributor community. There is no agenda associated with this site other than to collect and share as much information about the microstock industry as possible.
1293
« on: August 24, 2014, 10:40 »
So my take away from your response is that collective action cannot change anything, never has never will. Is that correct?
That's not what I said. I was talking about people bragging about the power and accomplishment of changing DPC when it was a token adjustment. Kind of like some agency saying, we're cutting you back to 5% and we own the rights to all your images.
So you don't think the actions contributors took against DPC accomplished much or anything. Since the point of this thread is to add something constructive, what do you think could or should have been done?
Actions? Like attacking senior members directly (i.e., emails to their personal accounts) for being in the DPC program! I don't consider that 'Constructive' but more 'Destructive'- actually like a mob! We have a right to decide where we want to sell our images - this isn't a 'Union' the last time I checked.
Bottom line- advice is available here for us to make an intelligent decision but the choice is ours...
There is no reason to attack other contributors. Many contributors don't know about things like DPC, it was very deliberately hidden from them just like the opt out is not easy to find. Sure some might find the information on here, most likely if they are already looking for it but many won't. It makes sense to compile a list of contributors to keep a larger group informed.
1294
« on: August 24, 2014, 08:53 »
The solution I would like to see, and I'm repeating myself for your benefit, is minimum 50% commissions from some agency, across the board for any downloads, that are NOT by subscription.
If you just want one agency that does that it already exists, Pond5 has 50% royalties across the board. Alamy also has 50% sales. GL has 52%. I don't think Pond5 or Alamy or GL just existing will solve anything. Please explain what you mean?
1295
« on: August 23, 2014, 21:14 »
The biggest, single, most effective gap that exists is the lack of a method to contact all or most contributors....the very first step is to have a communication loop between suppliers (us) so that the behaviors of agencies can be, for the most part, communicated to the supplier. A collective recommendation can be made to those tens of thousand suppliers and the impact to an agency action would be much bigger. I am not really talking about unionization, just a productive way to contact contributors across all agencies. Without that it makes it tough to wield the sword to an agency through whatever means, either mass takedowns, account closures, email blasts, etc. I do think we made an impact and FT but I also thing that once the momentum eroded the collection will eventually relax back to "normal". The KEY is being able to first communicate with suppliers.
Thanks for the response.
1296
« on: August 22, 2014, 23:10 »
So my take away from your response is that collective action cannot change anything, never has never will. Is that correct?
That's not what I said. I was talking about people bragging about the power and accomplishment of changing DPC when it was a token adjustment. Kind of like some agency saying, we're cutting you back to 5% and we own the rights to all your images.
So you don't think the actions contributors took against DPC accomplished much or anything. Since the point of this thread is to add something constructive, what do you think could or should have been done?
1297
« on: August 22, 2014, 10:32 »
But you have to be reasonable. What would your solution be? Shutterstock, for example, started as a subs place, and I'm sure that's where the major portion of their revenue comes from. Now they have to compete with iStock subs and all sorts of other agencies who jumped on the subs bandwagon.
As far as huge corporations using subs, I'm not sure if that's true. My guess would be it's smaller businesses and smaller design shops. Large ad agencies do not buy subs. They buy images one at a time. (This I know.) But I don't have any hard data about it.
I think it's reasonable to ask for pricing to be raised and royalties to be raised.
1298
« on: August 22, 2014, 10:03 »
Well, Stocksy already exists. For the few who can get in, that's a good thing. For the rest of us, not so much. Same with Creative Market for illustrators.
On subs I disagree with you, because subs opened up a new market for sellers, targeting people who couldn't afford stock images previously. And for many of us subs make up a substantial portion of our income. If you don't want your images sold as subs, then absolutely don't upload to the agencies who offer them. But for many of us that's not an option right now. Asking for a royalties raise, absolutely, yes.
A union's a good idea, but not sure how that would work with an international membership.
Compiling an email list for actions against things like DPC, yes.
Overall, I think "supporting" "good agencies" (those who offer a better royalty rate) probably won't work, because the largest agencies are the best at marketing, and no amount of images or support from contributors will make an agency better at marketing. That has to come from within the corporate structure.
Starving agencies of images may or may not work. One place in particular has 66,000 contributors...it would take an awful lot of people to starve them of anything. But for a nasty startup like DPC, that can absolutely work.
About subs, I'm not completely opposed to them in principle. I'm opposed to the low pricing and low royalties. I also don't think that subs are really for poor small time artists when a sub plan costs thousands of dollars a year for thousands of images. I think we can all agree that many of the customers of subs plans are huge companies that could easily afford to pay much much more. To keep up my blog I probably wouldn't spend hundreds of dollars a month on images. On the other hand a plan like DPC would really work for small time people that couldn't afford to buy images, I think that probably does open up the market but again at what cost?
1299
« on: August 22, 2014, 09:40 »
You really think that someone who creates images like this should really wait until he/she amasses 500-1000 until he/she even thinks about applying to any stock agency?
I guess it depends on how you work. Like anybody else, one off images take about as much time as creating a series. The more elements you create over time, the easier it is to composite together new images without much altering. If an agency takes on a more representative role, then I think it is fair for them to inquire about your productivity. I suppose the point is moot though, since I don't see most micros moving in that direction and away from crowdsourcing.
EXACTLY!!!!
How many images did it take through experimentation to create that one image? Just 1? 100? 500?
Do you see my point? The bigger the portfolio, the more the person has experience creating images.
Anyone can go into a burning home and attempt to rescue someone stuck inside. That doesn't make that person a firefighter....or a hero. It makes that person an idiot getting into to something they know very little about.
I don't think change will come from agencies limiting new contributors, at this point there really is no incentive to do that. Agencies are trying to get the largest number of images for a variety of reasons. Waiting for them to change their mind doesn't seem like real solution.
There is something to be said for new agencies trying it. Stocksy and Clipartof seem like they have had success with a similar strategy.
Is clipartof an exclusive only agency? I think in order to control supply it would need to be.
1300
« on: August 22, 2014, 09:31 »
How 'bout the OP makes a constructive suggestion?
Depends on the problem we're talking about. A solution to oversupply could be something like Stocksy. A solution to subs could be for contributors to join together and only supply sites that don't have subs or sites that have better pricing for subs. A petition with the threat of taking down images or stopping uploading unless royalties are raised is another possibility. A solution to general problems could be a union. A solution for some problems like the DPC deal for example could be to compile an email list to alert contributors of the change. Some of these deals and programs are probably unknown to a majority of contributors. There are lots of possibilities but one that I do not think will get us anywhere is waiting for agencies to have a change of heart on their own.
Pages: 1 ... 47 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 57 ... 151
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
