MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - Shelma1

Pages: 1 ... 67 68 69 70 71 [72] 73 74 75 76 77 ... 116
1776
Surprisingly, I tried one blurry illustration and it sold today for the first time. (jpg)

1777
I think other sites look at their existing customer base and say "we sell to art directors, and they like to apply their own filters/add their own text/have control over the blurriness of images, so we'll keep accepting more of that." While SS says, "Ok, we sell to art directors, but what other kinds of people will license images? What other untapped markets are out there? What's trending right now on social, in publishing, advertising, in the design world?"

SS is proactive; other sites are reactive. You see that in everything the others do...they follow the leader (ever so slowly). Plus, the other sites don't really consider the totality of what makes SS successful...the search algorithms, the IT knowledge, the marketing savvy, SEO, blogging, accepting what's on-trend, having a strong sales force, expanding into new markets, and a zillion other things I'm not thinking of. They just see the pricing, or the subs, and copy thata couple of years too late. (But that's  true in pretty much every industry...sure is true in mine.)

DT seems the most open after SS (from a vector perspective), but even they reject "similars," which, in my experience, increase sales rather than competing with each other. I think designers look for options to present to clients. I can see that on SS one buyer will buy several of my Easter designs at one time, for example. I really wonder if most microstock site management just has an idea in their head of what sells and refuses to look at hard data. I suspect so.

1778
In my experience SS has been more open to things than other sites. I don't know anything about CanStock, but certainly they're ahead of the curve compared to iS, for example. At least from a vector perspective, SS was accepting illustrations with text for years that sold really well, while iS was rejecting them until fairly recently. (Even in the last few weeks iS has rejected my all-time highest seller on SS as "not suitable for stock," while it's sold more than 2,000 times on SS). And in fact in their forums iS said "don't tell us what sells well at other places," which was certainly shortsighted, looking back. I think SS's attention to trends and accepting images that are on trend is part of what made them the market leader.

1779
iStockPhoto.com / Getty and Microsoft "ink" new partnership
« on: April 08, 2015, 10:35 »
"Today, however, the two sides announced a new partnership 'to develop image-rich, compelling products and services for Microsoft products like Bing and Cortana using Getty Images world class imagery.' The companies will partner 'to provide real-time access to Getty Images imagery and associated metadata to enhance the Microsoft user experience.'

I have no idea what this means for Getty/iS contributors. But why do I assume it's bad news?

http://www.geekwire.com/2015/microsoft-and-getty-images-end-dispute-over-bing-photo-tool-ink-new-partnership/

1780
That was exactly the article I was looking for a few weeks ago, when I paraphrased this quote from Oringer in another thread:

"I never imagined that Shutterstock would provide people in emerging economies with the opportunity to earn a decent living."

1781
Off Topic / Re: Seattle Wages Soar! Spread the wealth!
« on: April 07, 2015, 10:33 »

You Americans seem to stirr the same old pot with rotten soup, and it is 100 years old. You have now come to a place in time and history where you cannot exploit nature more and have to exploit humans, being them domestic or abroad.

Don't be silly. We've been exploiting humans AND nature ever since we came over from Europe hundreds of years ago.

1782
General Stock Discussion / Re: April- generally a slow month
« on: April 07, 2015, 06:40 »
No, businesses don't close in the U.S. for spring break...but I think a lot of parents plan to take their vacations then to be with their kids.

1783
Off Topic / Re: Why No One Will Hire You As A Photographer
« on: April 07, 2015, 05:29 »
I disagree with the article that what big brands and big agencies are looking for in a photographer has changed. We've always looked for photographers and illustrators (and directors) with a unique, recognizable style and point of view. As long as I've been in the ad business top image creators have been "known for" something, and there's always a photographer or director whose style is really in demand because he or she is the flavor of the moment. And there's always a demand for "solid" photographers who are generalists as well, who can shoot a product on white. You see that in microstock too.

1784
I think that was the problem...I'd paid Social Security tax on my entire income, not realizing there was a limit (wage base). So I don't think you need to pay more if you're already maxed out with your main job.

1785
I called the IRS once to see if they had one of my tax returns on file, because I misplaced it and wanted my new accountant to look it over to see if I'd screwed anything up (I did my taxes myself for a couple of years). A few weeks later I got a letter (not my tax return) from the IRS. I opened it, feeling very queasy...and inside was a check for about $3,000. My call had obviously gotten them suspicious and triggered a review, and when they took a closer look they discovered I'd overpaid. It was either self-employment tax or Social Security, can't remember which. Ha! What a happy day that was. Still makes me smile.

1786
I don't' deduct any of my household expenses either. It requires having a dedicated space, only deducting expenses relating to the portion of your house where you conduct business, only deducting expenses relative to the portion of income that comes from working in that space (I also work onsite at ad agencies sometimes) and has financial repercussions down the road when you sell your house. My accountant felt it wasn't worth it and advised against it. I do deduct advertising expenses for my websites, though.

1787
forgot to ask- by having a CPA do my taxes do I reduced the chance of an audit? If not, maybe I can just use turbo tax and do them myself?

In my experience a CPA will tell you about deductions or deduction amounts that will raise red flags to the IRS, but after a few years I knew all the red flags (which I never came close to anyway), so I started using Turbotax. I'm not sure either way will reduce your chances of being audited, except for the red flags your accountant might point out.

1788
Off Topic / Re: Seattle Wages Soar! Spread the wealth!
« on: April 06, 2015, 07:06 »
At the bottom end employers will pay as little as possible.  If left to market forces we will have what we have had in the past, which was basically slavery and/or people working under horrible conditions.


exactly, or even not paid at all with the excuse of unpaid stages and internships, i can attest this sh-it is going on even in top-tier multinationals like IBM or Oracle, go figure...

the market forces don't care about the social consequences of all this, and the governments have abdicated from their natural role ... the entire West is de facto at the mercy of the greediest and most corrupt multinationals and speculators in housing, education, food, energy and pretty much any primary item humans need, sooner or later they will privatize even water with the excuse of global warming.


Long article but worth the read, not completely accurate but close enough, they sucked the middle class dry on a large scale and left many without retirement or jobs. 

The Subprime Mortgage Crisis Timeline
http://tinyurl.com/37q963


Worked out good for me. I was able to buy a foreclosure for $75,000 in 2011, remodel it for about $15,000 and now I'm selling it for $150,000 after 2.5 years. All tax free because I used it as my primary residence and reinvesting it in a new, better house.


Your attitude simply amazes me. The only reason the mortgage crisis worked for you was luck. If you'd bought that house 5 years earlier, it would now be worth less than what you paid for it. But heck, it worked for you, so eff the suckers who could afford a house before you could.


It's horrible and unfortunate when someone loses their house. It's your home. It's your life. Here in the US a major reason for the housing crisis was people buying homes they couldn't afford in the first place.

Where I live a large percentage of foreclosures were "McMansion" $300,000US+ luxury homes. Before I went to buy a house I ran the numbers for my expenses, income, savings, etc, and figured out what I could afford. When I went to the bank the loan officer told me "you qualify for $XXX,XXX.". It was twice as much as the number I came up with. I told him "yeah, I qualify for that, but there's no way I could afford it." I'd be in foreclosure within months. But plenty of people bought houses based on what they qualified for which wasn't what they could afford. Why? Maybe some greed of wanting a nice house. Maybe ignorance not knowing what they could afford. Maybe poor planing and not having enough savings in the event one member of the household lost their job. Maybe just horrendously bad fortune.

I'm sure few people will agree with what I'm about to say because this is probably considered "old school" mentality. In my opinion we are increasingly moving toward a society where there's little self-accountability. When someone does something wrong or makes a bad decision it's someone elses fault. Commit an armed robbery and get shot by the convenience store owner? It's the store owners fault. Can't get a job? It's because somebody else isn't providing the jobs. Don't make enough money to live in an ultra expensive city? It's the business's fault and the government needs to force them to give higher pay.

I believe your fortune should only equal what you're capable of achieving. But we're increasingly headed toward a society of penalizing the hard workers and rewarding people who make bad decisions, perform poorly, or expect hard outs. The news is constantly reporting about the move toward only rich and poor. Should we be surprised that the middle class is disappearing?

So who's fault is it when someone buys a house they can't afford? Banks fault? Seller's fault? Foreclosure buyer's fault? Nobody is responsible for their decisions anymore.


There's culpability on both sides, IMO. Some homeowners should not have bought the homes they did, because they had balloon mortgages that would be impossible to pay once the interest rate went up (though I'm guessing many people were hoping they'd be making more money by the time that came about). However, banks and investors were absolutely predatory in this instance. They targeted certain groups and purposely sold them unaffordable mortgages, bundled those mortgages into difficult-to-undertand investment instruments, then bet against the homeowners being able to pay those mortgages. When the homeowners went into foreclosure the investors made a killing.

And when the bubble burst those mortgage lenders were on a rampage. At the time my dad passed away, and I had to sell his house as executor of his estate. His bank absolutely refused to give me or my attorneys a payoff amount because they were dead set on foreclosing. The house was worth much more to them if they could sell it at auction than the mortgage was worth if the estate paid it off. They finally were forced to give us a payoff amount the morning of the closing, because my attorney told them we "ARE selling this house TODAY." But for months they played games, pretending they'd never received my admin paperseven when my attorneys sent them. They even tried to serve my mom, who was dying of dementia in a nursing home, with foreclosure papersimpossible, because I was her legal guardian because she lacked the mental capacity to make decisions for herself any more.

I've worked for banks (in marketing) for decades. They are predatory. They prey on the naive and poor and uneducated.

1789
General Stock Discussion / Re: $250 for Nike wearing logo pix
« on: April 06, 2015, 05:34 »
I dont understand why Nike ends up paying 250$? The people doing to the work to pitch to Nike are buying the images. Nike might pay 10K for that job, we dont know. Its the people submitting the brief that are the  culprits here. IMO.

i think the logo designers don't care about the money, they would probably do it for free, their goal is to design something for a major company like Nike

Oh, they care very much. Nike's logo was created for very little when the company was in its infancy and run by a college professor who asked a design student for help. But large corporations pay millions for logo redesigns.

1790
Get another accountant. In my industry (advertising) we look for/recommend accountants who are familiar with creative businesses. If you're making a profit, I don't see why you couldn't take deductions related to the business. I think your accountant might be used to people who have expensive hobbies that make no money who then try to offset their hobby's expenses by claiming them as deductions.

As for proof that you were working on your trips...you have lots of photos taken during those trips and list those photos on micro sites, and can easily grab screenshots showing you're making an income from licensing, no?

1791
Off Topic / Re: Seattle Wages Soar! Spread the wealth!
« on: April 05, 2015, 17:50 »
At the bottom end employers will pay as little as possible.  If left to market forces we will have what we have had in the past, which was basically slavery and/or people working under horrible conditions.


exactly, or even not paid at all with the excuse of unpaid stages and internships, i can attest this sh-it is going on even in top-tier multinationals like IBM or Oracle, go figure...

the market forces don't care about the social consequences of all this, and the governments have abdicated from their natural role ... the entire West is de facto at the mercy of the greediest and most corrupt multinationals and speculators in housing, education, food, energy and pretty much any primary item humans need, sooner or later they will privatize even water with the excuse of global warming.


Long article but worth the read, not completely accurate but close enough, they sucked the middle class dry on a large scale and left many without retirement or jobs. 

The Subprime Mortgage Crisis Timeline
http://tinyurl.com/37q963


Worked out good for me. I was able to buy a foreclosure for $75,000 in 2011, remodel it for about $15,000 and now I'm selling it for $150,000 after 2.5 years. All tax free because I used it as my primary residence and reinvesting it in a new, better house.


Your attitude simply amazes me. The only reason the mortgage crisis worked for you was luck. If you'd bought that house 5 years earlier, it would now be worth less than what you paid for it. But heck, it worked for you, so eff the suckers who could afford a house before you could.

1792
General Stock Discussion / Re: $250 for Nike wearing logo pix
« on: April 05, 2015, 17:38 »
OK, fair enough. We don't know who they are, although you do give them worldwide rights to the image in perpetuity.

But think about it...by the time you buy a new, pristine pair of Nike shoes (or shorts or shirts or whatever you're shooting) and pay your model, you've already blown more than $250, would be my guess.


1793
General Stock Discussion / Re: $250 for Nike wearing logo pix
« on: April 05, 2015, 12:17 »
The difference is that those shots are generic enough to be used by all sorts of different individuals and companies. That gives them high marketability and the potential for big earnings. By shooting specifically Nike, you're limiting yourself to editorial on a couple of sites. I doubt the returns would be worth it. Also, you're not shooting for $250 (which is a pathetic price for use by a huge corporation anyway), but only for a very slim chance at $250.

And ethically, it just turns my stomach that a corporation like Nike might wind up paying $250 for worldwide rights to an image. Normally they pay tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

1794
General Stock Discussion / Re: $250 for Nike wearing logo pix
« on: April 05, 2015, 10:04 »
Custom photography they want to pitch to Nike for $250.  Sigh.

Nike spends $2.4 billion a year on marketing. Hire a photographer and pay a decent amount for licensing. I really find crowd sourcing for custom work disturbing.

1795
General Stock Discussion / Re: Dumb photoshop question
« on: April 05, 2015, 09:40 »
Great answer. Thank you.

1796
Off Topic / Re: Seattle Wages Soar! Spread the wealth!
« on: April 05, 2015, 06:39 »
I wonder if the business owners who are tacking on a visible surcharge for the wage increase also tacked on visible surcharges when the cost of coffee went up, or the cost of flour, or the cost of every other thing they buy on a daily basis. Seems to me like they are making more of a political statement.

I suspect the 'political statement' theory is true. But it's also true about the costs of flour, coffee, labor and everything else: When businesses have to pay more to be in business, they have to raise prices or else operate at a loss.

If costs of labor go up 15%, then most of what businesses buy will go up (suppliers eventually have to pay higher labor costs too). The result is that employees make more money, but the things they buy cost more. All that has really happened is inflation. Unfortunately gov can't create new wealth by passing laws.

Yes, prices will go up. But they won't go up as much as salaries will rise. Payroll is just one expense of running a business. Rent, for example, won't double overnight. Equipment has already been purchased. And I'm glad to see the public backlash. Do business owners think people will want to see some poor working person's slight minimum wage increase broken out on their bill? Customers interact with staff, not business owners, most of the time. So customers will have sympathy for the people they know and see every day.

You clearly don't own a business that deals in retail in any significant way. Customers go to where they feel they get the best value, and lot of them think the best value is the cheapest. They don't care how much the employees are paid.

Why do you think foreign car makers such as Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen, Kia and Hyundai build all their plants in the Southeast? They do it because the labor costs are cheaper. And now American workers also have to compete with foreign workers who make $1 a day, and you want to price small businesses out of business because you hate corporations? Left-wing thinking is so nonsensical and bankrupt. Guess what? Unemployment doesn't pay more than minimum wage, and it doesn't last forever.

Many people think "value" means "good quality at a fair price," and actually do care about how much people are paid. If some people weren't willing to pay more for better quality everyone would own a Kia.

Yes, foreign car manufacturers such as Mercedes and BMW absolutely take advantage of the lower wages people are willing to accept in the Southeastwhere people and corporations get a disproportionately higher share of federal aid and government handoutsthen turn around sell those cars to people like me, who get less back in federal "welfare" than they pay in federal taxes. (That includes corporate "welfare.")

I love to hear people who live in the "taker" states complain about other people feeling "entitled" when I live in the state that gets the least amount back from federal taxes of any in the nation. We support you with our taxes. (And that includes the military and the GI Bill.)

Why would I want to put corporations or small businesses out of business? I've worked for both. I've also owned my own retail business. All I'm saying is pay people a minimum wage that keeps pace with the cost of living. Parity. That's all. Assume the cost of your payroll is going to rise each year right along with all your other costs.

If people were going to "coast" on minimum wage they would have done that back in 1978, when minimum wage was worth a lot more than it is now. But somehow that didn't happen.

I really don't get why you're so angry about people being paid an amount of minimum wage that's equivalent to the minimum wage from 40 years ago. Do you own a pizza shop on the side?

1797
General Stock Discussion / Re: Dumb photoshop question
« on: April 05, 2015, 06:19 »
That's what I thought. Thanks! But you can bring EPS into PS, right? Would that be editable in PS?

1798
General Stock Discussion / Dumb photoshop question
« on: April 05, 2015, 06:02 »
Hi guys,

Is it possible for a jpg to have layers when you open it in Photoshop? I'm clueless because I work in Illustrator. A customer is upset that a jpg she bought doesn't have layers. I though jpg just compressed everything into one flat layer?

1799
I'm guessing the original terms didn't include a buyout, otherwise they wouldn't bother to ask the photographer's permission to use the shots.

1800
My last zero day sale there was about a week after I joined in August 2011. But today *feels* like a zero sale day. So far it's worse than Christmas day. Yesterday was pretty bad at SS too, though surprisingly normal at DT and iS.

Pages: 1 ... 67 68 69 70 71 [72] 73 74 75 76 77 ... 116

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors