|
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 - Shelma1
Pages: 1 ... 88 89 90 91 92 [93] 94 95 96 97 98 ... 116
2301
« on: June 10, 2014, 05:59 »
I'm indie, and my sales have plummeted. So I definitely don't feel favored in any kind of match. 
2302
« on: June 10, 2014, 05:56 »
I'd never heard of this camera. Wow, what cool technology! Amazing.
2303
« on: June 09, 2014, 19:48 »
Well yes, of course companies have changed direction, changed ingredients, pulled products, gone out of business, etc. etc. because of boycotts...
Stock companies? Microstock?
...As I said before, it's not either/or. You can opt out AND do something else. But why post in a thread about a positive group effort and repeatedly tell everyone their efforts are going nowhere (despite evidence to the contrary)?...
What evidence? Has Fotolia announced something I haven't heard about recently?
...And BTW, what's with the double standard? You're convinced DPC can do just great even if we opt out half their images, but StockFresh can't possibly compete unless they have another 7 million.
What double standard? I've said that I think DPC wouldn't change anything if we opted out half of their images (14 million). I've also suggested they could get by with 10 million, meaning that I think a company has a comfortably large enough collection at the 10 million mark. I think Stockfresh is under-supported with around 3 million images.
Not sure where you're getting the idea that I have any sort of double standard with regard to these companies.
And I'm not commenting on the Rosa Parks comparison. It's ridiculous to even mention in the context of a stock image boycott.
You're simply dead set on believing microstock cannot be affected by a boycott, though boycotts have been effective against all sorts of businesses, governments, prejudice, you name it. You're also dead set on believing that if we can't shut a site down within five minutes any effort we make is completely useless. I'm just very glad so many others here don't share your defeatist attitude.
2304
« on: June 09, 2014, 19:31 »
Ah, too bad.  Thanks for your opinions.
2306
« on: June 09, 2014, 17:08 »
Other than suggesting people upload 7 million images to a stock site that spends nothing on marketing and generates few sales, what would you like to see happen?...
Well that would be a start. At least it's a different strategy than the current popular one of simply complaining about things in an Internet forum and hoping for something to change.
How do you expect a company to generate sales when they don't have a quantity of images that can adequately compete with any of the top companies? Sales don't magically appear. Marketing certainly is a part of it, but you need something to market, also.
All I've been saying is that we need to be more open to trying something different. We've done this pointless song and dance of deleting images, threatening to delete images, boycotting uploads, opting out images, etc., and it goes nowhere. Has any company ever had to radically change direction based on a boycott?
I think we can do things a little differently, take a different approach. Unfortunately I'm mostly alone in that belief so I'm sort of wasting my breath/keystrokes. But I still hold out hope that a greater number of people will warm up to the idea of trying something that is historically (in microstock) unconventional.
Well yes, of course companies have changed direction, changed ingredients, pulled products, gone out of business, etc. etc. because of boycotts. Here's an oldie but goodie: "A tired African-American woman by the name of Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat near the front of the bus to a white man. This sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which deprived the bus company of 65% of its income and led to the landmark decision by the Supreme Court that bus segregation is unconstitutional." As I said before, it's not either/or. You can opt out AND do something else. But why post in a thread about a positive group effort and repeatedly tell everyone their efforts are going nowhere (despite evidence to the contrary)? And BTW, what's with the double standard? You're convinced DPC can do just great even if we opt out half their images, but StockFresh can't possibly compete unless they have another 7 million.
2307
« on: June 09, 2014, 14:00 »
2308
« on: June 09, 2014, 11:11 »
The cynicism on this forum can be really off putting...
It's beyond off-putting lately. Honestly I think it's bordering on being damaging to the business at this point. We'll never see anything change for the better in this business if we approach everything with pessimism.
It seems that many folks here are content to just complain about the companies doing bad things and mock the companies trying to make their way up the ladder. Heck, even good companies get mocked around here.
What's the old saying? Something about a nose and spite...
Other than suggesting people upload 7 million images to a stock site that spends nothing on marketing and generates few sales, what would you like to see happen? I think people are being realistic. It's great to see a site that lets you set your own prices and adds 20% to the topwhich is how it works in the real world, at least in NYbut they've got 40,000 images. Even Symbiostock has almost 300,000 now. The sites that are successful put a lot of effort into marketing. Shutterstock is successful because they market the heck out of their site and keep reaching out to tap new markets. Nobody will buy your product if they don't know it exists.
2309
« on: June 09, 2014, 09:25 »
I am wondering how much bigger the difference of images count between Fotolia and DPC would be if no one would have deleted images from Fotolia or stopped uploading to them, but just have opted out from DPC instead. Currently I am not uploading to Fotolia, but this makes me think if uploading to Fotolia and being opted out from DPC would make DPC less attractive for the buyers, as the images count difference between Fotolia and DPC would grow bigger.
I can't imagine that any customers care. Some of us may obsess over the relative numbers, but buyers will only be concerned with the quality and quantity of product and the quality of service. As long as they find a reasonable selection of images that meet their needs, why would the relative size of DPC vs. the Fotolia Mother Ship matter to them?
Me, I'm opted out from DPC and continuing to delete my Fotolia port one image at a time. I can't change buyers' behavior, but at least I can avoid supporting those who work against my interests.
It may or may not matter to buyers. To the buyers who put images in their cart only to find that they couldn't buy them because they'd been removed, it mattered enough to tweet and complain about it. It could matter enough for them to look elsewhere. If more images went missing, even more people wouldn't be able to buy the images they thought they could, and DPC would get a bad reputation. A bad reputation alone could kill them. We've already succeeded in cutting their library by 24%, having at least a few buyers wonder what kind of crazy operation they are when images keep disappearing, and basically forcing Fotolia into offering an opt out lest they risk losing millions of images in their main collection. Just because we didn't shut them down completely in one month doesn't mean the effort is a failure. Even if it just makes us feel like we can finally come together and make some kind of positive change it's a success. And it's not over. People keep opting out.
2310
« on: June 09, 2014, 05:23 »
The majority are still selling their images for $1 a pop on DPC, but we have no way of knowing whether that's because they're willing or happy to do so. The majority of contributors to DPC are probably still unaware that their images are sold there. It's entirely possible that the majority would opt out if they knew. You don't see Fotolia sending a mass email to all contributors informing them that their images are now on DPC and offering them the option to opt out. Instead they dangle little carrots and make opting out as difficult and hidden as possible.
I think the only reason they offered the opt out is their fear that most people would leave Fotolia entirely if not given that option.
2311
« on: June 08, 2014, 10:22 »
What a sad poll.
2312
« on: June 07, 2014, 11:56 »
Glad you found a site you're comfortable with.
2314
« on: June 07, 2014, 09:10 »
I think it's probably a combination of things (these are just guesses on my part; I don't have any information):
1. They raised the bar and didn't announce it.
2. They supply their inspectors with software that opens the image at 100% in the center, and if the center's out of focus (even if you intended it to be focused somewhere else)...
3. Inspectors are paid very little and are most likely trying to get through as many images as possible as quickly as possible, so many will simply reject the image in point #2, while a few may take an extra couple of seconds to look further.
4. Inspectors are freelance and all have different levels of competency. They also make mistakes.
5. Shutterstock needs to address the problem one way or another, or they'll have a mass defection of photographers who finally throw up their hands in disgust.
2315
« on: June 07, 2014, 07:39 »
Latest stats:
Fotolia: 28,803,691 images
DPC: 21,893,144 images
Difference: 6,910,547 images
So the difference between the two sites keeps growing. Great!
2316
« on: June 07, 2014, 05:38 »
First, thank you for being concerned about fair payment for visual artists and taking the time to post here. Shutterstock is a legit site. I would guess if you closely read the legal disclosures of any site you'll find similar language; their legal department is just making sure all bases are covered. I've never heard of someone being sued by a photographer after licensing an image through one of the big stock sites and using that image within the licensing terms (someone correct me if I'm wrong). You're much better protected licensing an image through them than by using Creative Commons...unfortunately, people do buy images through stock image sites and place them in Creative Commons "mistakenly." Large ad agencies and publishers use Shutterstock all the time. Of course, we'll all offer to sell you our own images direct as well.
2317
« on: June 05, 2014, 20:59 »
Yes, according to the map I get sales in China. Also, SS has contributors in China.
2318
« on: June 05, 2014, 16:13 »
Today seems to be going OK, but that could change by EOD.
2319
« on: June 05, 2014, 16:12 »
Because mobilizing an effort like that is a lot harder for everyone.
It's much easier to opt out all your images (3 minutes) than to upload hundreds, or in my case, thousands of images to a new site. That would take me many, many hours, and I want to see a financial return for all that time. And if I have to pitch in with marketing because they're not doing it, I want to be paid for that, too.
And that right there is why there's no point in even trying to mobilize any effort like what I suggested. Everyone wants something but they don't want to assume any risk themselves. Apparently not even if we managed to come to some sort of community consensus on what the most fair company in the business is and that everyone should make an effort to support that company.
I'd rather spend hours doing something that might actually make a difference than 3 minutes doing something that has been done before and never seems to work.
https://www.facebook.com/SymbiostockPage
In case you thought I was just mentioning Symbiostock. I created the Symbio Facebook page and have been posting on it and promoting the network as a whole for months. In fact, if I remember correctly, I promoted some of your work and blogged about your Symbio site as one of the best-looking. (You quit Symbiostock soon after.) I also paid for advertising for Symbiostock on Facebook and got donations from others in the network for ads. Several of us have been retweeting about each others' sites as well.
2321
« on: June 05, 2014, 14:57 »
Because mobilizing an effort like that is a lot harder for everyone.
It's much easier to opt out all your images (3 minutes) than to upload hundreds, or in my case, thousands of images to a new site. That would take me many, many hours, and I want to see a financial return for all that time. And if I have to pitch in with marketing because they're not doing it, I want to be paid for that, too.
And that right there is why there's no point in even trying to mobilize any effort like what I suggested. Everyone wants something but they don't want to assume any risk themselves. Apparently not even if we managed to come to some sort of community consensus on what the most fair company in the business is and that everyone should make an effort to support that company.
I'd rather spend hours doing something that might actually make a difference than 3 minutes doing something that has been done before and never seems to work.
https://www.facebook.com/SymbiostockPage
2322
« on: June 05, 2014, 11:04 »
What if we could add 7 million images to a small company? We could jump-start a start-up with a nice collection of 7 million images right off the bat. Or boost a small existing collection. Stockfresh has something like 3 million images. A boost like this puts them over 10 million.
Maybe it's time to go the other way. I just don't know how we mobilize around an effort like that. For some reason, it's a lot harder to get people to support something that would boost a company rather than try to damage it.
Because mobilizing an effort like that is a lot harder for everyone. It's much easier to opt out all your images (3 minutes) than to upload hundreds, or in my case, thousands of images to a new site. That would take me many, many hours, and I want to see a financial return for all that time. And if I have to pitch in with marketing because they're not doing it, I want to be paid for that, too.
2323
« on: June 05, 2014, 06:30 »
Yesterday I applied to Graphic Leftovers. I never heard of them before but I was surprised by the "Fair Trade Contributor Site" logo they have. Never saw this before either but it seems worthwhile to give some support.
Lots of info here:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/graphic-leftovers
Personally, I find the actual name offputting. Who wants to buy leftovers?
Or is there some other cultural/artistic illusion I'm missing?
I agree. Awful name.
2324
« on: June 04, 2014, 15:59 »
I have a theory.
I think iStock sales really started to drop when they got rid of the rating system.
I know many people hated it, and I know it was possible to game the system by having your friends vote for your images, but from my end as a buyer, I always loved that feature...at least for illustrations. I could click on the highest-rated search and invariably come up with the most impressive work. For ad agency buyers who see all the images on microstock as a bargain, it was a good way to get the best work, and new work, up front in the search results. New images of high quality could be found easily that way.
I never benefitted from the ratings as a contributor, btw, because my work is mediocre at best and hardly ever got good ratings.
Pages: 1 ... 88 89 90 91 92 [93] 94 95 96 97 98 ... 116
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
