|
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 ... 70 71 72 73 74 [75] 76 77 78 79 80 ... 145
1851
« on: August 01, 2012, 10:03 »
I'm Batman. Not the one on this forum, but the real one.
1852
« on: August 01, 2012, 09:57 »
I started a stock agency also, and building links are not nearly as important as having a real costumers base.
It depends on how you plan to build that customer base. If you plan to build it through search engine traffic, then link building should be an important part of that.
1853
« on: July 31, 2012, 16:17 »
I joined WarmPicture after I left exclusivity with IS. I've had some sales there but as Lisa mentioned, it's been a bumpy ride.
One big thing is that although Dan has invested a ton of time and money in it, the software that runs the site just isn't great. And given the massive fixing it required, even if the upgrade to the new version of Ktools offered better features, it wouldn't be simple. I often wonder if there isn't some way to take a nice site - like StockFresh - and use that as an artist's collective. Seems to me it's never going anywhere as a competitor to the existing agencies, but the site looks decent and operates well...
One of the aspects of WarmPicture that helps a lot is that it doesn't take anyone who wants to join - it has to be someone with an established portfolio and sales track record. That allows people to upload without an inspection service - but you can't do that if you take people who might upload images with logos, unreleased property or people, etc. I rather like the idea of using the existing agencies as a training ground - schooling contributors in all the no-nos for royalty free stock - and then letting them graduate after enough sales to a self inspection service.
Us using the agencies would make a nice change from them using and abusing us 
I like WarmPicture and respect the work that Dan put in, but is it the best example? How many images are on his site that aren't on the big 4, mid tier, or even low tier sites that pay less than favorable rates? What percentage of your portfolio is unique there? I'm guessing it is around 0% for most contributors there. If he can't compete with unique content, then how is he supposed to compete? I'm not trying to bash his site or the contributors, but just pose a question. Did anybody really throw their full weight behind it (other than probably Dan himself)? I think that is an important question to ask. If nobody was making a concerted effort for change, then how do they expect it to happen?
1854
« on: July 31, 2012, 10:40 »
The concept of running a business but not having the phone number or address, eludes me. What? Is it a secret club or something.
Imagine someone wanting to buy a pair of shoes, but the store has an unlisted number and unlisted location. Doesn't that seem a bit odd?
Just like a photo, if you want something to be unknown, private, and never at risk, never put it on the Internet.
I don't sell shoes or any other physical product, so there isn't really any reason for anybody to show up at my doorstep. There is nothing they can see here that they can't see online (other than me). As far as the phone, I find phone calls distracting and inefficient, so I'd prefer to get emails. That said, I still do face to face meetings and phone conversations, but it is much easier to run everything through email. If you want an anecdote, I turned down a job a few months ago. They wanted me to meet them at their office. It was about a 30 minute drive to the north side of town where their office was. In the time it would have taken me to get ready, drive there, have the meeting and drive back, I probably could have finished the job. I turned the job down. It just didn't make any sense to spend all that time to meet for such a small job.
1855
« on: July 31, 2012, 09:49 »
Does anyone see a problem running a home-based business, NOT posting their business address on FB?
I've heard too many scary stories of Facebook users being stalked etc. simply because their address leaked or something similar so I was wondering, how one can do serious business without posting their actual location?
Is this widely "accepted" now in today's FB world or is it "still" frowned upon to just name the city where I live do business in?
I rarely post my address or phone number., although I'm sure neither are really that hard to find. I give them out when clients ask for them, and they are usually on my invoices. I haven't noticed anybody in the bushes stalking me which is probably lucky for them. I doubt I'd be very exciting to stalk. 
1856
« on: July 31, 2012, 09:29 »
If you want a coop, then create one. Build it or at least investigate the costs to build it.
1857
« on: July 30, 2012, 11:30 »
In addition to price, there does seem to be a lot of discouraging factors to buying it. They kind of created a mess when they decided to cross-pollinate their content to all their different sites. I don't even know how you would untangle that. I definitely would not want that job, and I wonder if anyone else would. I guess I'd be worried (if I was a contributor) about the entity that does buy it. They might just want to gut it for parts.
1858
« on: July 30, 2012, 10:28 »
They announced this project in 2010 http://www.fastmediamagazine.com/blog/2010/10/17/deviant-art-and-fotolia-collaborate/
But the only result that I know of is Deviant portfolio at FT: http://www.fotolia.com/p/202869477
Thanks. I wonder what kind of buyers deviantart is going to attract. It's spent the last decade or so establishing itself as a social community for art wannabe's and I'd say 95% of the content is from angst ridden teenagers.
Plus, aside from a rating system, there is no quality control. If you bought an image that looked good at the preview size but had so much noise at full size it looked like it was taken in rainbow blizzard and your only recourse was to rate the seller a 1 out of 5 and ask for a refund, would you ever go back?
That is a concern. I guess I was thinking that from the description that it would be more like buying direct from an artist than an agency, so it would be more about the reputation of certain artists.
1859
« on: July 29, 2012, 18:10 »
I was thinking more of larger companies, after Warren's post about Coca Cola. I wouldn't expect you to have any issues yet, Cory. But think about in the future, when you get to the size of istock.
LOL. I don't think there is any danger of that happening. It did make me curious though. I had to go check out iStock's Facebook page.
1860
« on: July 29, 2012, 16:14 »
I had another thought... Didn't they have a partnership with Fotolia at one time? Did that get killed?
1861
« on: July 29, 2012, 16:11 »
It seems like an interesting open platform. Hopefully, the launch goes well.
1862
« on: July 29, 2012, 14:19 »
I don't really find it overly time consuming or have a problem with negativity. I still spend most of my time creating new images. Occasionally, I'll write a Facebook post about what's new (which gets automatically mirrored on Twitter) or a blog post if I want to write something longer. It may translate into sales, but it may not. Either way, it's a simple way to build a public image.
1863
« on: July 29, 2012, 11:52 »
Something I came across on another forum (not MSG) that deals mostly with the stock market side of things. The poster is the owner of an ad/marketing agency in the US (has always appeared pretty clued-up on his business before) and had this to say about FB:
"Eventually they will be unable to make money. People use it as a way to share pictures, links, events, and cat videos. LOL. Not much money there. The ads are generating the lowest clickthrough rates of any platform. People don't want a relationship with a brand. They want relationships with their relations ( and friends) and from Brands they want something for nothing---a coupon , a discount, a chance to win a free I Pad etc. The problem they have is the way the next generation uses it. The younger users check it like they check their email. They are on and off it in 2 seconds. The younger users also use it for private chatting, again no monetization to be found there."
This is not very accurate. People I know on Facebook follow authors, bands, restaurants, causes, companies, etc. Maybe, their ad network doesn't produce like it should, but people definitely use Facebook for more than photos and friends. The site is very commercial and is a treasure trove of marketing information.
1864
« on: July 28, 2012, 11:04 »
If I was taking all my current images with me to the past, then I would probably open my own shop and not bother with IS or SS. I think the lottery idea though is a much better plan.
1865
« on: July 28, 2012, 10:52 »
I have a Facebook account, but it is more personal than business orientated. I do have a page for my stock art site as well. I can't say Facebook itself brings in a lot of new customers, but it does present a nice platform to remind existing customers about you and to network with friends, colleagues and clients. I guess I think of it more as a combination between a news letter and a Rolodex. I would say that if you don't enjoy using it then don't. There is no need to force yourself because there are plenty of other ways to promote yourself.
1866
« on: July 25, 2012, 10:05 »
I can't however accept the thought that DT's management is that stupid. They must aim for something else.
What do you think it is?
I would assume that they want a diverse catalog, and want contributors to fill it with a new and different subject or topic with each file. Unfortunately for them, most professional contributors don't work like that. They work in sets and revisit popular topics, so these rules have the opposite effect. They become overly restrictive. I think both the similar policy and the payment tiers work as upload deterrents. Why create new files that are just going to undercut your older files?
1867
« on: July 23, 2012, 18:09 »
This is microstock, people! If you want professional reviewers, professional images, professional everything, GO TO MACROSTOCK. Stop trying to change Walmart or JCPenney into Dillards or Robinsons (or whatever upscale, expensive department store you have in your area).
Micro started out as amateur photogs submitting photos to get paid little, but make money based on quantity. Those same amateurs, over time, improved to produce better quality images but it's still microstock. Suppliers get paid cheap so the images can sell cheap and satisfy the lower-budgeted markets.
If there's a market for higher priced images and you are a professional, sell on the macro agencies so you can get the higher prices. Leave the micros for what they were originally intended to do. Seems like people want to change the micros into something they are not, and never should be. That's why they're called microstock.
(done in my best Andy Rooney impersonation) 
I agree and disagree with you. I guess I've thought that there will be a split at some point in micro, and two models will emerge. A crowd sourced type model and a more high quality midstock model. It just seems like you have these two groups of contributors in micro, but they don't necessarily want the same things. iStock seems to be trying to foster both of them at once which I'm not sure is going to work. I think you may have to separate them to make it work long term.
1868
« on: July 23, 2012, 15:05 »
I want the rewievers to do like professional reviewers....
I still don't see how that's possible.
How much are professional reviewers paid compared to the tiny amount that microstock reviewers are paid?
How many years experience do they have compared to microstock reviewers?
Wont the cost be too much for microstock?
If the current reviewers are asked to do this, do you really think they would do a good job? I don't.
I also can't agree that sites accept any old images because we put pressure on them. We put pressure on them to pay us a decent commission but they generally take no notice of that.
Perhaps for every buyer that insists on only seeing high quality images, there's one that wants as much choice as possible?
I don't think better reviewers are needed. I guess I always felt like image reviews should function more like a spell check. They are just used to determine whether the file has any obvious mistakes. Any quality or aesthetic concerns should be made in an initial contributor review. If you raise that bar, you don't have to clean as much up on the back end.
1869
« on: July 23, 2012, 13:31 »
It's not so much about your views on the business, but more about how you work and how knowing more about your workflow can influence future changes and features on the contributor site. The way it was explained to me beforehand was that for years, SS has been developing the contributor site without much insight into what contributors do before they get to the point of upload. I don't want to get into any details, even though I didn't sign an NDA or anything, but suffice to say they have some really great ideas for new features and tools that I think will be very useful to a lot of people, and I thought it was great to be able to get my hands on those things and give some feedback.
The interview is also about your thoughts on the business as well, but I found that the conversation steered more towards how I use the site now and how they could make the site better for me in the future.
And I think the more different your views are, the better probably. They're looking for a broad range of responses and getting varied information is probably just as helpful as getting common responses, if not more so.
I don't upload there anymore, so I guess I don't really use the site anymore either. I just check my overall earnings/stats and pop into the forum occasionally. I just don't really expect much from them anymore.
1870
« on: July 23, 2012, 12:40 »
I did an interview with them. It's legit. A couple guys from the contributor site team came to my house to see my studio and how I work. I don't think they do that in all cases, I just happen to be local to SS HQ.
If you're asked to do it, I recommend it. It's very insightful, you get to weigh in on some upcoming proposed features and changes to the contributor site, and also voice any concerns or questions you have.
Sounds interesting. I passed on it though. At this point, my views are probably so different that I really don't think I'd have anything productive to add.
1871
« on: July 23, 2012, 11:36 »
1872
« on: July 23, 2012, 10:57 »
I'll side with sharpshot on this one. One man's trash...etc. But I would certainly vote to delete any image that hasn't sold after one year on a top tier site, and two years on a middle or low earner site.
I think you would seriously have to worry that some contributors would stop uploading if those were the rules. I probably would because I have never made the home run images that sell immediately. Also, I think you would ruin the diversity of the catalog. You would eliminate a lot of subjects that are unique, but not necessarily popular. Maybe, I'm wrong, but I just picture a homogenous collection of older images that cover all the same subjects.
1873
« on: July 23, 2012, 10:44 »
This is the second request I've had for an interview with Shutterstock. This one seems contributor related. The other one was with the Morgan Stanley people. I was wondering if other people were getting these requests or are they just picking me because I'm grouchy and opinionated?
1874
« on: July 23, 2012, 10:09 »
Not 1 for $1, but StockFresh lets you buy 5 credits for $4.99. I think that's the lowest buy-in available. BigStock does their simple pricing thing where there are no credits, you just buy what you need for the price listed, which I think for the smallest size is $2.99.
I wouldn't call the dollar-image claims misleading. The credit package buy-ins have never been a major issue for any of the stock sites. I couldn't imagine anyone signing up for a site and then not be willing to put 5 bucks into it.
That's basically what CanStockPhoto has too. It's around $3 to just buy without credits, then half if you buy a credit package. That's where I bought last time I wanted an image, although I did look through Dan's, Cathy's, Elena's and Lisa's sites first. As an infrequent buyer, it's so much easier to just pay for what you want. I wouldn't buy from iStock again because of expiring credits (among other reasons).
1875
« on: July 23, 2012, 09:43 »
Sorry, I meant to give a serious answer too. Just do what you enjoy doing or drawing. It still needs to be commercial, but it just makes it so much easier to do all the time when you actually like it.
Pages: 1 ... 70 71 72 73 74 [75] 76 77 78 79 80 ... 145
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
