|
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 - Sadstock
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 24
176
« on: October 22, 2012, 16:12 »
Bunch of muppets running that site. I have zero fear of TS ever hurting SS in any way. They just aren't even in the same ballpark.
----------------------------- I think you hurt Kermit's feelings comparing him to Istock...
177
« on: October 18, 2012, 12:02 »
On the issue of keyword Godzilla, I submit with 5 keywords then add in all the others after acceptance. Given your concerns about the quality of keywords on Istock, I suspect this approch does not appeal to you, but it sure keeps Godzilla off my back. :-)
Since istock has taken away or ability to alert them to this keywording issue, I would certainly include 'fairy lights' as a keyword since I'm guessing customers seaching for 'christmas lights' in british english will only be shown the results for 'fairy lights'.
178
« on: October 10, 2012, 13:13 »
This thread finally got me off my butt to subscribe, which I've been meaning to do.
I subscribe to support the site, morally if not much finically. As photographers, we need this space to ensure we have a way to learn what is happening in the industry, good or bad, without the censorship of a micro company run site.
I occasionally find the ads informative, so I would prefer to keep them. Maybe give the premium members the option to show the ads if they want?
179
« on: September 26, 2012, 17:08 »
180
« on: September 24, 2012, 17:33 »
Forgot to add that I learned about this through an email Veer sent me announcing the new collection.
181
« on: September 24, 2012, 16:03 »
http://www.veer.com/about/veerroyale/?em_812_amr_1_Roya_all"Veer Royale is a collection of the sweetest images weve got. Our photo editors have hand-picked a select group of photos, illustrations, and vectors that are highly stylized, well-crafted, and have strong aesthetic appeal. In other words, the best of the best." But it seems like it is at the same prices as before, so what is the point? Hey look at us, we have pretty images! 
182
« on: September 21, 2012, 16:06 »
I try to maintain 3 different backups - online, hard drive, and CD stored at work. It seems impossible that so many backups could fail, but it happens.
A year ago I lost track of a few hundred files, don't know if they were accidentally deleted from my photo drive or what, but could not find them. They were also not in the online backup. Backup hard drive failed (little puff of smoke when I plugged it in), so it was only the backup CD that saved me. These were very successful images that I wanted to reprocess before uploading to newer sites, so the loss of the original RAW files would not have been good.
Answering the OPs other question, storage is cheap, so it is generally not worth my time to look through my images and decide which RAW files to save or delete. I just save them all.
183
« on: September 19, 2012, 23:40 »
This month SS is trouncing IS (SS is 45% more than IS - almost 1.5x even given one EL from IS). But the last two days at IS have been really good - good in comparison to terrible, not all time good.
I noticed there were old files in the mix - looking at my last 20 sales, I have every year from 2004 to 2012 represented in the sales. Perhaps people with only newer files are getting hit by some best match change?
----------------------------------------------- My last twenty have a good age distribution 2006 to 2012, so I don't think its a new file thing.
184
« on: September 19, 2012, 16:49 »
I'm having an unbelievably bad week at IS. FT is outselling them 10 to 1.
185
« on: September 12, 2012, 10:49 »
Some news:
Alamy on Yaymicro
Mauritius images not on Zoonar anymore
Thanks! Do you have a link to the information about Mauritius? I like to have a citation/link when I make updates so people know I'm not making the information up when possible :-)
186
« on: September 11, 2012, 19:53 »
Leaf,
I understand why you made the change and find the new way of looking data very helpful, but found the old way, (top company at 100) to be much easier to comprehend because the base was 100 so the math was simple enough I could do it in my head.
Would it be possible for you to give us a toggle so we could switch between the two views?
that might create more confusion that it would solve but perhaps a mouse over with a % would be a solution?
I think a mouseover would work just fine. Great idea!
187
« on: September 11, 2012, 15:19 »
Leaf,
I understand why you made the change and find the new way of looking data very helpful, but found the old way, (top company at 100) to be much easier to comprehend because the base was 100 so the math was simple enough I could do it in my head.
Would it be possible for you to give us a toggle so we could switch between the two views?
188
« on: September 07, 2012, 17:24 »
There is also three options to show what your primary media type is.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/profile/?area=forumprofile
You might consider adding a little mouse over text to the three icons. I was not sure what they meant and could not find the answer :-)
189
« on: September 01, 2012, 23:21 »
My view on this page http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php has a lot of space in it, so it takes a lot of scrolling to see all the threads. The "last post" and "time" columns both have a lot of horizontal space and the thread titles, forum and author are split into two lines with excess space between the different threads. Any way you can tighten this up to reducing the scrolling? I'm in firefox if that is important.
190
« on: September 01, 2012, 23:15 »
Thumbs up to them for supporting MSG, that's great. But I still don't understand why they're asking us to do their research work for them in another thread here.
----------------------------------- They are posing their advertizement as a question so that they don't get shot down for flogging their service.
192
« on: August 23, 2012, 15:30 »
Thanks for digging through the details. It is amazing the information you can tease out of regulatory filings.
Amazing to see the huge annual growth in revanues.
193
« on: August 20, 2012, 10:42 »
Do you think the font is a bit too large?
No, I think it should be significantly bigger so that one of your posts actually fills one page.
------------------------------------------ Agreed! Make it bigger, I had to put on my reading glasses to make it out. 
194
« on: August 16, 2012, 16:30 »
So then what you are saying is that Getty did not sue? But at same the same time you're using that as evidence that Getty is in the business of suing and saying otherwise is "a blatant lie"?
From the letters I've seen posted, Getty is threatening to sue. Either they intend to follow through and sue, or they are "blatantly lying" in their letters by threatening to do so. Personally, if I got a letter from a company as well financed as Getty that was threatening to sue me, I would assume they mean what they say.
ETA: But then, perhaps their threats to sue are as empty as their assurances to contributors that "nothing will change". If so, then maybe they shouldn't be taken seriously after all. 
------------ http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/http://www.seotrainingsw.com/2011/09/getty-images-demand-letter/http://womeninbusiness.about.com/b/2011/08/23/getty-image-settlement-demand-letter-scam-or-for-real.htm Not defending infringers, just posting this to show that Getty does do exactly what the music industry does to infringers. Not necessarily a bad thing by the way, but inconsistent with what the Carlyle guy was saying. Note that these are the first three hits in the Google search which returned 8.5 million results to letter from Getty images.
195
« on: August 16, 2012, 10:33 »
Interview with rep from Carlyle Group http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/15/carlyle-getty/FORTUNE: You're paying a 37.5% premium to what Hellman paid in 2008. Why is the company worth so much more today?
Merrill: Getty was then and still is a leader in its industry with a tremendous collection of assets. But the makeup of those assets has really changed over the last several years with much more digital and other product diversification. The client base also has diversified. It has evolved into a much different business than it was in 2008.Really? My digital images from 2006 werent really digital? Does he mean there is more web-based usage? But how customers use the images arent Getty assets.
You mentioned more digital assets. How does Getty survive when anyone can just use Google to search for, and steal, digital images?
We're wise enough to the fact that there is always going to be some piracy. But the company has a very sophisticated image recognition system that helps it find when images are being used without its authority. But unlike with music, Getty is not in the business of suing those who violate. It tries to work with them to become customers.So all those people who get the threatening letters from Getty to fork over $1,000 are not being threatened?
196
« on: August 15, 2012, 13:54 »
BJP: Why this deal? Why now?
Jonathan Klein: This deal is happening now because Hellman & Friedman typically owns a business for about three years on average. It has owned Getty Images for about four years now.
This is certainly the best reason Ive ever heard to sell a $3.3 billion asset, weve exceeded our average ownership duration.
Also this
BJP: What is the arrangement between Carlyle and the Getty family and management?
Jonathan Klein: What it means is that instead of the Getty family selling and getting cash and the management team selling and getting cash, the Getty family is not selling - they're exchanging their shares for shares in the new company, while the management team is taking some cash and investing some money back into the business for the next period of growth.
197
« on: August 15, 2012, 09:39 »
So long as somebody is willing to buy Getty debt, this cycle can keep going. One possible endpoint would be if the economy starts to grow strongly (Ha Ha) and/or the stock market booms, Getty could be taken public again paying off the debt in the process.
198
« on: August 15, 2012, 08:56 »
It's incredible the way they pile more and more debt onto it and proclaim it's worth more and more. It reminds me of the famous Dutch tulip price bubble.
are you sure about that? is Carlyle Group that dumb and GI that smart? or are you talking about a manipulated sale price?
it would surprise me to see them doing a bad business (one or other) once we are talking about top companies that must have very good employees
------------------------------------ Somebody in this transaction is dumb, but who it is depends on how the deal is structured. :-) Carlyle is buying Getty, but some amount of the financing of the deal will be with new debt, presumably secured by Gettys assets and that Getty will have to pay back. Suppose Carlyle is paying $1 billion in cash and somebody else is giving H&F another $2.4 billion financed by the issuance of Getty corporate bonds. Carlyle only needs to pay itself $1 billion in dividends to break even, which H&F has shown was at least possible once. The bond holders are taking some risk if Getty cant pay them back, but they would get to seize Getty assets if that is the case, so they arent at too big a risk either. The ones really at risk are Getty employees and contributors who might get squeezed even further.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 24
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
