|
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 - cthoman
Pages: 1 ... 58 59 60 61 62 [63] 64 65 66 67 68 ... 145
1551
« on: January 30, 2013, 12:53 »
In order to be "middle tier" an agency needs to average just less than $30 per month according to the Microstock Poll Results. I think top tier should average above $500 and middle tier should average above $100.
That sounds reasonable. I tend to look at agencies that way too.
1552
« on: January 30, 2013, 11:54 »
Perhaps we have to think of ways to persuade buyers to use them?
It's simple just put your images on those sites and not the other ones. Only nobody wants to do that. 
1553
« on: January 30, 2013, 10:48 »
Google Drive, Low Royalties, Forced Migration to the Partner Program. You can put down any of those or all of them. I think I put down the low royalties and partner program when I deleted mine a couple of years ago. I just kept the reason in a text file and copied and pasted it.
1554
« on: January 29, 2013, 10:54 »
Nice update. It is definitely easier to use now. Hopefully, this will bring in more sales.
1555
« on: January 28, 2013, 23:13 »
I actually find this an interesting quandary. If customers can request a refund of files bought, why can't the contributor?
1556
« on: January 28, 2013, 12:33 »
80 per week would have been nice back in the day. Oh well. Anyway... After reading this and the one on the IS forum, these added images don't seem like a big deal.
1557
« on: January 28, 2013, 12:02 »
Yeah the getty/istock thing is completely understood. But i don't know what to do in my situation I make 50-60 a month through istock, maybe 7-10 dollars a month on shutter stock and forget the rest. As a hobbyist, if I am not associated with Istock what's the point? Nobody else pays decent.
In all honesty the artistic community F'd itself by getting so dependent on these stock sites 10 years ago. All that can be done now is to claw at the scraps and hope that there is enough at the end of the year to provide a great xmas for the family.
I hope you don't feel I am attacking you I really do appreciate the complement.
Exclusivity at IS isn't too bad of an option. I think you'll eventually want to be independent, but if you don't plan on building your portfolio quickly then being an exclusive until you feel you've outgrown it might be an option. It's hard to say.
1558
« on: January 27, 2013, 16:04 »
I think for a relatively unknown artists it is better not to use credits. People are unlikely to buy so many images from you that a credit package makes sense. If they need only one or two images from you, what would they do with the remaining credits? Personally I wouldn't want to leave my money lying around on some little known website.
In my experience, it is both. Most buyers come in and buy one image. I've tried different incentives to get them to buy a second or third, but, for the most part, they just buy the single image that they want/need. That said, you do get buyers that come in looking for multiple images and many times they want some sort of bulk discount. So, it probably isn't a bad idea to have that set up for them. I personally never liked credit systems though because I just want to spend for the images I need.
1559
« on: January 27, 2013, 15:56 »
Please let me know the barriers that have been found by similar things. Nows a good time to anticipate them.
I'd say most of the barriers are the obvious ones. People want something that is easy and running your own site requires time, energy, knowledge, skill, effort, money, etc. All those things can get complicated or expensive really quickly depending on how far down the rabbit hole you want to go. So, I'm not sure the demand will ever be huge because there is always going to be enough work involved that will scare some contributors off. That said, the ones that do want to manage all that could be a very knowledgeable and dedicated community.
1560
« on: January 26, 2013, 21:34 »
Sounds interesting. I'm always interested in taking a look at new things. I definitely would love to see a community of individual artist sites or a collaboration of several of them develop. Some of that got started with KTools (which I think is positive), but I wouldn't say it is flourishing. I guess there are still a lot of barriers to running your own site. I'm not sure how to make it easier though.
1561
« on: January 26, 2013, 11:45 »
Looks like they are getting some pretty favorable search placement for files that have never sold. And so it begins.
1562
« on: January 25, 2013, 10:42 »
Yes and no. If everyone boycotted sites that sell subs, we'd all get paid more per sale and probably more overall, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. So, it's business as usual of selling anywhere and everywhere for most contributors.
That said, I've been consciously trying to move my business (images) to higher paying sites and neglect the lower paying ones for the last two years. I eliminated sites like Vectorstock, Fotolia, 123RF and iStock (and family) altogether. The transition was definitely painful, but overall my earnings have gone up.
In the end, I think it is a viable strategy to protect the value of your work. It's tough though because there aren't that many sites out there that will help you do it. The other strategy (selling everywhere) works too. It's really about what you think works best for you. There is always that pesky sustainability question too.
1563
« on: January 24, 2013, 01:46 »
Then doesn't this make orphan works out of thousands and thousands of images that people post to Facebook and other websites? Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't this create exactly the same kind of copyright-stripping problem we're fighting against in this Getty/Google deal?
Not at all. You can still easily find the copyright holder for an image (especially stock art) by doing a quick search in Google images. Orphaned works laws are more about keeping old works alive rather than usurping living copyright holders rights.
1564
« on: January 23, 2013, 19:31 »
Build something great and people will show up. Sorry if that is too vague of an answer, but we've all seen agencies come and go. The ones that are dedicated, study the market and create a great product stick around. The rest close up shop pretty quick.
Off the bat, it looks like a KTools store. That's not a deal breaker by any means (I have a KTools store too), but it does give me a little pause about the level of technical skill and dedication going into the site. Just my two cents. Good luck with your endeavor. It can be a lot of work to run your own site, but it can also be rewarding.
1565
« on: January 23, 2013, 12:41 »
The microstock industry came about mainly because of technological advancement in the internet speed combined with higher quality digital camera and the fact that you no longer needed to spend hours in a room full of chemicals to develop films. The opportunity to provide more economical images grew exponentially and took the world of commercial photography by surprise. The fact that commercial imagery became cheaper was not caused by a malevolent entity. It was mainly caused by sudden massive production of images. Anybody that has studied economics will understand that the price of anything is always subjective of its supply and demand.
The recent Getty Google deal to give our images for free was not caused by technological advancement, evolution or economics, this was done secretly, without permission from their owners and certainly was not done in good faith. Getty simply did not act on our behalf and probably broke our agreement. That is the big difference.
Nice simple explanation. You get a heart.
1566
« on: January 23, 2013, 12:12 »
Could micro see this Google business coming? NO. In a years time they will all be doing it, this is just the beginning, tip of the iceberg.
Hence: Getty are clearly succeeding in killing off micro.
I don't really see the whole "if one does it, they'll all do it" philosophy. These agencies (while similar) clearly have different strategies.
1567
« on: January 23, 2013, 11:59 »
Ah well, just another $4 to go
Me too. On a side note, I had one sale this month for a negative amount. Has anyone had this?
1568
« on: January 22, 2013, 14:46 »
Agreed. Most of us were upset with the 20% commission structure for years, and I know I was on the fence a few times about completely pulling my portfolio because of it.
That's kind of my thought. Does anybody really want to go back to only 20%? It doesn't seem like you could put that genie back in the bottle.
1569
« on: January 22, 2013, 13:06 »
I think there's more people that would love for IS to experience a thousand deaths, than them being saved...
Who? and Why?
Me because I don't contribute there anymore. They are my competitor and their royalty structure is bad for the industry. I'd like to see them fail, but it would take a lot more than them failing to change the industry. It would probably be a good start though. I guess you could say that them turning over a new leaf would be more positive than their failure. That's true, but what in their recent behavior would have you believe that would ever happen? I don't see any signs of it. In fact, every year that goes by reaffirms my decision to leave iStock because the direction they were going was obvious.
1570
« on: January 22, 2013, 12:37 »
It's too late for me.
1572
« on: January 21, 2013, 11:48 »
I have a portfolio of close to 900 image on istockphoto.com.
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/840626/?facets={%2225%22%3A%226%22}#1fae6c1f
Istock used to be the premier site for selling vectors. I've been on the fence for a couple years now about trying other sites. Would you think other sites would be just as difficult as istock? "Difficult" meaning, dropping sales, low visibility, deceiving.
Any thoughts? Shutterstock is working with exclusives right now, so I'm doubly thinking about dropping exclusitivity. I've seen all the google/istock issues, but am just not sure how other sites do with vector art.
Any help would be great.
Thanks,
Chris3fer
As someone that sells similar stuff, there is still a market for cartoon characters out there. But, the only real way to find out if your work sells is to take the leap.
1573
« on: January 21, 2013, 00:08 »
Why put logo into keywords of that sort of image, if it can't actually be used as a logo?
I was under the impression that some places automatically remove the keyword logo. I thought SS did because I remember some thread about it on their forum.
1574
« on: January 20, 2013, 12:38 »
It depends on the licensing agreement. Most of the site don't allow it. Even if they do though, a buyer can't really use an image for what most would consider a "true" logo, since that would require them to own the image.
1575
« on: January 16, 2013, 15:39 »
The blogg is called " why exclusivity doesnt work" my point is, it does work and would work if it wasnt for certain agencies abusing it.
I mean thanks to IS, I would think just the very word Exclusivity would make most here go to the bathroom. The concept of exclusivity, the way it should be, should be a guarantee for its members to earn money. Thats what it used to be and still is within certain agencies.
Never mind. Its a waste to try and explain it but still. 
I tend to agree. There's nothing wrong with the concept of exclusivity. That said, it's never going to work with most micro agencies. They don't have enough loyalty, devotion or even money for their contributors to make it work. Their model really isn't set up that way. Really all John is doing is pointing out the inherent flaws in his model by basically saying that he can never guarantee you that you will be able to maintain a steady income or even earn an income at all.
Pages: 1 ... 58 59 60 61 62 [63] 64 65 66 67 68 ... 145
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
