|
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 - caspixel
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 41
201
« on: May 30, 2011, 09:19 »
If getty raises the bar clients will be forced to pay more and shut the f.. up, as simple as that.
IS created microstock, and IS can kill it if they want.
Like cclapper said, Getty is not the only game in town. If Getty raises the bar, the client will shut the f up and move onto another site. And Getty will be left wondering, again, what the heck happened. I think most microstock buyers are okay with the $10 price point. It's the $50-$200 "microstock" price point that is the deal killer. Most iStockers report great earnings in 2007-2008. I think that was when iStock had the pricing structure that worked for everyone.
202
« on: May 30, 2011, 09:11 »
And sorry, but no one is going to buy a photo of a piece of paper or an apple for RM prices.
And this is why Getty is shuffling images around. 10 years ago they probably could have sold an apple for RM prices. Not today.
With the new agreement they tried to take total control over moving images between RM and RF. Contributors went nuts. Problem is that some of those contributors probably still have RM apples and Getty understandably wants to cull RM to unique high value images.
Your apple comment is about supply/demand and perceived value. An apple image is simple so it should be cheap. The problem is when an image has a room full of expensive models shot at an expensive location. Should that be as cheap as the apple?
If macro is too expensive for buyers to justify paying, and micro is too cheap for contributors to justify creating, what's the solution?
Your, and others', anger at buyers is displaced though. How is it the buyers' faults that Getty is doing all that stuff with RM and RF? They are making the decisions on what price point the photos are being sold at, not the buyers. All the buyers can do is take it or leave it. Clearly they don't care what the buyers (or contributors) think and they are just pushing ahead with whatever they think they need to do as a company. And if you want to blame someone else, blame Bruce and blame John Oringer. The buyers bought microstock because it was suddenly available. Prior to that, as Baldrick says - they either weren't in the industry or didn't buy imagery. The thing I find most ironic about those who are complaining (who weren't part of the RM club back in the day) is that you wouldn't be selling photos at all if it wasn't for microstock. (I've heard the talk about how hard it is to get to be a Getty photographer.) And many people made a great living when microstock first started, and still are, though I agree that the market is over-saturated. Something that should also be noted as well, is that many photogs were making the "high cost/production" value shots back when when microstock was just a buck (or less - Aldra at iStock comes to mind, and YuriArcurs as well). So, I'd say the devaluing came from other photographers, not buyers. No one was forcing people to make those shots at those prices. They took it upon themselves for their own reasons. And I sure would like to meet some of these designers who are charging $200/hour! I see a lot of people doing stuff for $25/hour and I see jobs for even lower hourly rates than that.
203
« on: May 30, 2011, 01:28 »
It isn't really much of a sale. I don't find a couple credits off particularly enticing.
204
« on: May 30, 2011, 01:27 »
I'm just wondering about the people complaining about the designers complaining...I know a few photographers here were selling RM, but it's my understanding the club was closed to most of you, wasn't it? So microstock gave many people an outlet to sell their photos who didn't have one before.
And I can tell you what designers with small budgets were doing before microstock - they weren't buying photos. At all. Microstock filled a need. If prices go back up to RM levels, most people will find they will be SOL with sales as most small budget designers and businesses will have to find other options. And sorry, but no one is going to buy a photo of a piece of paper or an apple for RM prices. If it bothers you to sell your stuff at microstock prices, you have a choice. Don't do it. Sell only RM.
205
« on: May 29, 2011, 12:47 »
Is it just me, or have our personal profiles been improved and expanded upon? I also notice that we can no longer see how many people are ignoring us. Or is it somewhere and I just can't find it. I will be so disappointed at losing this information, because it's kind of a badge of honor. 
206
« on: May 29, 2011, 12:31 »
Say good-bye to jerryleeg: I've been using istock extensively for years and when the last of my credits run out, I'm going to have to move on. With no way to sort by price and no improvements to the search functionality, trying to find a suitable image at a price I or my clients would be willing to pay has become such a time consuming and frustrating chore. Thankfully, not all of istock's competitors have chosen greed over usability. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329654&page=1
207
« on: May 27, 2011, 10:04 »
at least show appreciation for the money he's spent with your company, express the feeling that he may come back - after all, his money pays salaries - and wish him luck.
Yes. Exactly. He seems to forget that. Where does he think the money comes from to pay his salary?
208
« on: May 26, 2011, 13:22 »
It makes Lobo's comments more understandable. They're not interested in keeping all customers happy, just the ones that will grow with the company and pay the higher prices. To everyone else, "Sorry, good luck," seems like a reasonable response from a company that maybe doesn't care about serving customers in the microstock price range anymore.
If that's the case, then they should just be honest, say that, and stop with the microstock masquerade. At this point it just looks like a big bait and switch. And it they were actually honest about what they are trying to become, then they wouldn't be bothered with the complaints. If they do finally admit they are midstock, I see them fading away, however. I can't help but continue to point to the massive success that was iStockPro. Oh wait...
I don't think there's any way to be honest with where they're headed and not offend people.
Getty is shuffling images into different licensing. RM will be reduced to absolutely unique content and anything that isn't unique will be pushed to RF. Getty and IS RF seem to be converging into the Vetta/Agency tier. Any RF that is oversupplied or low value will stay in IS's lower tier and eventually be pushed to Thinkstock subscription.
In that case, then it doesn't really make sense for them to alienate the small budget buyers like they are. Because they would still need them to support the lower tier.
209
« on: May 26, 2011, 12:06 »
Even more sad is when I read Lobo is good compared to (some nickname I forget) that used to do what Lobo does now. So everything is just fine, righ? 
You know what the difference was back then though? iStock was the rebel agency sticking it to "the man". There was a more rough and tumble, raw feeling to the forums back then. People used to post photos of dildos and say "boobies". A lot of the discussions were no hold barred. Once Getty took over, the company morphed and their image began to change. The juvenile, rude attitude in the forums is now out of step with the rest of the corporate branding.
210
« on: May 26, 2011, 12:02 »
It makes Lobo's comments more understandable. They're not interested in keeping all customers happy, just the ones that will grow with the company and pay the higher prices. To everyone else, "Sorry, good luck," seems like a reasonable response from a company that maybe doesn't care about serving customers in the microstock price range anymore.
If that's the case, then they should just be honest, say that, and stop with the microstock masquerade. At this point it just looks like a big bait and switch. And it they were actually honest about what they are trying to become, then they wouldn't be bothered with the complaints. If they do finally admit they are midstock, I see them fading away, however. I can't help but continue to point to the massive success that was iStockPro. Oh wait...
211
« on: May 26, 2011, 10:19 »
And I've heard that they know that site code is totally messed up, it was never made to withstand so much traffic, but they're too greedy to build a new one that would really work, RC, special collection and price raises that bring (or better said brought in) a ton of money aside.
Maybe *this* explains their systematic purging of their customer base? If not, then their behavior defies logic.
212
« on: May 26, 2011, 09:38 »
I wonder if that thread is going to get the "Sorry. Good luck" lock.
213
« on: May 26, 2011, 09:32 »
I don't think when people complain it is just for the sake of complaining. If someone is taking the time to find the forums and type a post it is a last ditch effort to say, "I really like shopping here and I have been very loyal, but there is a serious problem and I'm not going to be able to buy from here much longer. Is there anything you can do to keep my loyalty (and my money)?"
I'm just surprised Lobo stopped at "Good Luck" and didn't add "Good Riddance".
214
« on: May 26, 2011, 09:15 »
Saying prices have been rising steadily across all supply sites is not true, but I suppose people have to say that so that the price increases at iStock don't seem so bad (everyone else is doing it, right?). Someone should direct that buyer to 123RF or StockFresh. Has Shutterstock been raising their prices? I don't shop there so I wouldn't know.
And Lobo...forever clueless about customer relations.
215
« on: May 24, 2011, 00:14 »
Big deal. I think most customers are
216
« on: May 23, 2011, 14:29 »
I like 123RF and have been recommending them.
217
« on: May 21, 2011, 18:23 »
If you get a response at all, I'm sure it will be along the lines of: "I would like to assure everyone that all royalties are being paid on every download whether it's a download from iStock, Getty or the sites in the Partner Program.". *wink* *wink*
218
« on: May 20, 2011, 17:25 »
Funny. I saw on IS where the a thread about this was closed probably for the purpose of minimizing the bad image (no pun intended) Istock gets from these peanut commissions.
Just closed? I'm surprised it was not deleted too.
219
« on: May 20, 2011, 09:59 »
Yes!! here we are wrecking our brains out trying to find out why its so bad and the simple answer is: lack of traffic, thats it, never mind Vettas or collections, the traffic simply isnt there anymore, and thats ofcourse the WORST, news of it all.
Bashing your head against a brick wall.
The lack of traffic is *because* of the Vettas and collections. By deliberately stacking the search with high priced content iStock alienated its customer base. I guess they underestimated how important the small designers, churches, non-profits, and other small businesses were to their business.
220
« on: May 19, 2011, 08:51 »
That one is equally as beautiful. I saw it a few weeks ago too.
221
« on: May 18, 2011, 00:50 »
I found it quite mesmerizing. I hope others enjoy it too. http://vimeo.com/elcielodecanarias/tenerifeSome info on it: Scenes taken from Tenerife, more than 2,000 meters above sea level and over a year to capture all possible shades, clouds, stars, colors from a unique landscape and from one of the best skies on the planet. First in a series of videos nocturnal and crepuscular Time Lapse taken in the Canary Islands trying to capture the beauty of each island. To capture the natural movement of the earth, stars, clouds, sun and moon TimeLapse technique was used, Dolly vertical and horizontal rails, spindles with horizontal and vertical movements. HDR data collection.
222
« on: May 16, 2011, 13:22 »
It makes perfect sense for an agency to raise prices on popular images
I don't quite understand the logic of that. Why would a buyer want to pay more for an image that so many others are using?
If you aren't hoping to sell an image to more than one buyer, then I don't think microstock is a good fit
I'm not saying you shouldn't *want* to sell to more than one buyer. I'm just wonder about the logic, as a buyer, of paying more for a very recognizable image that is extremely popular.
223
« on: May 15, 2011, 23:27 »
It makes perfect sense for an agency to raise prices on popular images
I don't quite understand the logic of that. Why would a buyer want to pay more for an image that so many others are using?
I agree. and isn't that one of the key things at Dreamstime with the image levels? price goes up the more downloads it gets. fine by me as long as it keeps selling!
Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge you the chance to make more money on those images if they continue to sell at the higher price point. I just don't understand the logic. I usually try to buy images that don't have a lot of downloads and even then there are no guarantees. In fact, a client of mine was threatened with legal action by a competitor because I inadvertently downloaded an image that they were also using. And that image actually didn't even have that many downloads on Dreamstime - though it was also available at other sites. It was quite embarrassing. Of course, there was no legal action, because that person didn't have a leg to stand on, but I did feel bad that my client had to be put through the stress of receiving a nasty-gram.
224
« on: May 15, 2011, 23:13 »
I don't think people reuse images as often as you might expect. I occasionally reuse an image for the same client, taking a photo I used in a brochure and using it on their website design, for example. But I'd never reuse an image I bought for use in one client project in a new project for a different client. Aside from it feeling a bit unprofessional to do so, I think it would look strange in my portfolio to see the same images used in projects for different clients.
That and the fact that rarely does a particular image fit well with multiple projects for different clients.
Does it happen? I'm sure. But does it happen often enough to make a dent in overall earnings over a prolonged period of time? I doubt it.
Yup.
225
« on: May 15, 2011, 15:57 »
It makes perfect sense for an agency to raise prices on popular images
I don't quite understand the logic of that. Why would a buyer want to pay more for an image that so many others are using?
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 41
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
