|
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 ... 53 54 55 56 57 [58] 59 60 61 62
1426
« on: May 04, 2011, 15:59 »
Getty missed the original change that came with the internet and had to buy istock to keep up with the times.
I think that this is how the story gets told but I do not believe it is accurate. They had always been buying the best stuff since the 90s. The problems which they had run into were different. The problems were absolutely related to being a public company at at time when answering to stock holders expectations had become an hinderance to their focus on the future and also a big PITA. So much stuff was changing and looking over their shoulder to see what CNBC was saying might not have been the best way forward. I'm not arguing the rights or wrongs of this and there may not be any. On the one hand great photographers make fantastic images. On the other hand there are markets. It's two things which sometimes sit awkwardly.
1427
« on: May 04, 2011, 15:28 »
Microstock was based on cheap images, all at the same price, selling in large volumes to a grateful public. As far as Shutterstock are concerned ... it still is.
Shutterstock was about subscriptions. It seem likely that this where much of the business will be. Lots of photographers are going to have a tough time liking that - but even if they try to invent alternative models they are going to have to realise that for lots of image consumers subscription is going to be a very attractive model.
1428
« on: May 04, 2011, 15:15 »
Maybe the logic is in the money. Maybe this strategy really works and brings in more money for Getty.
They have always been focused on where things are going ultimately - they have a very markets based analysis to what they see as focusing on what will become inevitable (anticipating what will be inevitable). That definitely is not going to make all photographers happy but it is potentially realistic. I think they see image in terms of commodities and markets (the patterns and trends I mean). They said a while back that subscription is going to be the big part of the strategy (same as the music industry will go but maybe but for slightly different reasons). I think they are probably anticipating the, more or less, end of print and a world in which blogs and magazines merge. I would guess that they believe that they know where the market is going. Whether or not everyone goes with them. It is very possible that they anticipate a world of posh stock for special projects and anything else depends upon keeping your subscription up to date. For the most part this is commercial stock we are talking about here. Not contemporary reportage or gallery art. It is, ultimately, business. People need to be realistic or even to invent their own alternative niche models if that works for them. I am not arguing the rights or wrongs of this by the way. But there is a sort of inevitability about it all.
1429
« on: May 04, 2011, 09:49 »
Prepare for more commission cuts to cover the cost of this latest purchase.
I am sure it is not meant to be, but can you see how that might seem like stirring or spreading FUD ?
1430
« on: May 04, 2011, 09:13 »
I wonder why??
It says if you read the article. it's looking to expand its global reach, benefiting from Photolibrary's presence in India, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia.
1431
« on: May 04, 2011, 07:58 »
1432
« on: May 03, 2011, 19:11 »
the past few months the PP numbers have been in by about the middle of the following month IIRC followed by GI numbers
1433
« on: May 03, 2011, 18:29 »
Don't you have to wait up to 3 months for the PP sales to dribble in?
no
1434
« on: May 03, 2011, 15:36 »
I've been expecting them to get rid of the monthly sales threads for several months now.
It maybe needs to be re scheduled given that for many people the GI and PP sales are an increasingly important part of the total picture and those results always come in later. ETA: although most contributors never post in the sales thread from what I can gather. I doubt many read it either but I might be wrong.
1435
« on: May 03, 2011, 15:28 »
Graphic designers are not always the best people to build websites today. I think that pretty much everyone agrees that to a lesser or greater extent these days. They are often great as part of a team building a website but that would be a different issue.
Interesting. In my world, and the companies I have been talking to, the people that are getting hired are the ones that have multiple capabilites, such as being able to do graphic design for print and do web design and web building. It used to be a company would hire a graphic designer, a web designer and a web developer, as three different people. More and more they are looking for multi-talented people.
Asking a graphic designer to build a website would be like asking an engineer to paint a portrait. Or asking a painter to program a computer. The point is that a good website is some percent good code and some percent good graphic design Modern sites need to be built by people with very good coding and code optimization skills. And they need to know about methodological approaches to database and code design etc. Graphic designers are people who are there to talk about the look and feel, branding, themes, typography etc. It's teams who build good websites today. Almost everyone else is better off with a customization of a content management system. eg Squarespace etc. IMO (and especially with respect to the long term maintenance and evolution of the code, backend, site security etc). ETA: that sounds kind of almost controversial, reading it back. It is not supposed to be. I love and admire great graphic design - I grew up loving the work of Neville Brody and Peter Saville etc - and all the things I found out about including certain photography because of what they were about. The point is that people who love code should be coding and people who love design graphics should be doing that. For the most part.
1436
« on: May 03, 2011, 14:53 »
Graphic designers are not always the best people to build websites today. I think that pretty much everyone agrees that to a lesser or greater extent these days. They are often great as part of a team building a website but that would be a different issue.
1437
« on: May 03, 2011, 07:45 »
I've just done a search on 'Chinese Cuisine' (Photos only) and of the 6158 results there were actually TWO non-exclusive images in the first 100 results, another THREE in the next 100 results and a very generous SIX in the next 100 results.
The results look really good for that search - food photography is a skilled niche and the images look really well styled etc. On the whole. There are over 6000 images in that search. If you compare the first page with the last page it does seem to indicate that the best match is producing very good results from a buyer perspective. And at a variety of prices. The first page of that search certainly isn't overly thick with Vetta and Agency --- although, undeniably, Vetta and Agency images are some of the best.
1438
« on: May 01, 2011, 07:02 »
Well, you certainly did your part and got a bunch of links to Getty in there! 
Linking directly to the information people ask about is often one of the best way of linking to the information which people ask about. It's not a conspiracy and I am sure you would agree that there are some great images in the Getty Flickr collection. ETA: and there are many more images which are available at Flickr under the request-to-license program. This is something which exists as a potential avenue for photographers in general - for example whether they are exclusive (with iStockphoto) or not. Some people are going to see that as a potential alternative to Vetta for getting images into Getty - which is clearly a potentially very important outlet as anyone with a few Vetta sales there will probably agree. You can search the Flickr discussion group threads to read different people talking about their experiences of whether it works for them or not.
1439
« on: May 01, 2011, 05:20 »
1440
« on: May 01, 2011, 04:09 »
1442
« on: May 01, 2011, 03:56 »
Well I wasnt exactly one of Frank Capras originals but did industrial environmental work for them now and then. It was OK but as I said rendered very little revenues.
Um I think you mean Robert Capa. Frank Capra was a film maker (A Wonderful Life etc) 
1443
« on: May 01, 2011, 03:46 »
I did some work with an agency called Magnum
I did an internship in the London office. One of the most inspiring experiences of my life, with hindsight. Although I was rather too immature at the time to fully appreciate it. The office staff were as serious and interesting as the photographers, is one of the things which struck me btw. I think people often forget that sort of thing.
1444
« on: May 01, 2011, 03:31 »
Check out the Flickr Collection at Getty Images. Some fine work. (BTW AFAIK this is a route which is open to both Exclusives and non exclusives).
1445
« on: April 30, 2011, 15:32 »
Sure, flickr's great to find pictures from people who just walk around shooting and upload random things from their day. If that's what they want...
... and often it is although there is much more than just that on Flickr. That typically indy style is very hip and commercial. And it has been on and off right back into the 80s. And work done by people who are doing what they love without thinking initially about money is often some of the best. I spend hours looking at Flickr just because the work is often so interesting. And there are some very well known photographers with Flickr accounts too. There is also lots of very stylish and cool work on Flickr. Much of it available to licence now via Getty RF or RM either directly or via the Getty request to licence (via Getty). I wonder whether there is much cross-over between Creative Commons and paid content. IE people looking for CC content who end up paying to use work. My hunch from talking to people is that many buyers are not especially price sensitive within certain broad parameters.
1446
« on: April 30, 2011, 12:34 »
The second-largest holder of Treasury debt, China ...
The second largest holder of US debt is the US Social Security Trust Fund (appx 18%). The largest holder of US debt is US institutions and ultimately the US public (appx 42%). See here for a chart etc. Appx $4.5 trillion of the debt is non US owned. Meaning that appx 2/3 of US debt is held by the US itself and its citizens. China holds $1.154 trillion of US debt according to this Reuters report from 24th April 2011. According to the same report the total debt is $14.3 trillion. China therefore holds only appx 8% of the total debt.
1447
« on: April 28, 2011, 13:01 »
Is this potentially an issue related to the massive and extra-ordinary outage which has affected services hosted via Amazon EC2 infrastructure over the past week or so ? There was an email from Getty about contributor services being affected.
If so lots of companies and large parts of the internet have been affected.
1448
« on: April 28, 2011, 12:29 »
Sounds like class-action lawyers are the big losers here.
How sad. On the other hand frivolous and trivial class action suits potentially undermine the social and legal value of these sorts of actions in general IMO.
1449
« on: April 28, 2011, 12:09 »
With Vetta/Agency sales the picture may be healthier for exclusives
Don't forget that exclusive+ sales can make a significant difference too.
1450
« on: April 24, 2011, 15:17 »
one of the group that are on a mission to come here and try to disspell the notion that buyers are leaving istock; Do you really believe that there is a group who come here to try to dispel any notions about iStockphoto? Seriously ? You seem to be implying that anyone who expresses any opinion different to your own can be dismissed as some sort of propagandist. People who choose to be exclusive at iStockphoto are not brainwashed minions. It's a 30 day contractual commitment which people choose based on deciding whether or not it works for them at the time. That's it. It really does not turn people into mindless automatons. It's quite divisive and IMO unnecessary this continually trying to create division between people based on what agencies they choose to be with at any particular time.
Pages: 1 ... 53 54 55 56 57 [58] 59 60 61 62
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
