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 ... 94 95 96 97 98 [99] 100 101 102 103 104 ... 145
2451
« on: September 05, 2011, 22:12 »
All they can do is provide a fair platform for the content they receive, which I think they do admirably.
I guess that's my point. I'm just not sure the sub platform is fair or sustainable to the contributor. I'd much rather sell 10 times less and get 20 times more.
2452
« on: September 05, 2011, 20:25 »
I'm not sure there is really much they can do to improve. Exactly. They've become as successful as they have just by keeping it simple and sticking to the original principles of microstock. All images are priced the same, the site works flawlessly with just the right amount of functionality and they've never tried to shaft their contributors. Slowly, slowly catchee monkey.
I've run my own figures backwards again and, if my portfolio is still as average in performance as it ever was relative to the greater library, they suggest that Shutterstock now has annual sales in the region of $150M. That doesn't include Bigstock either.
hmm... not exactly the context I meant it in.  SS is a great company, now, but I have concerns about the long term viability of their model as a contributor. I'm just not sure it's feasible to maintain the download volume from a purely subs site. On Demand has helped, but I just wonder if 5 years from now, the raging river of downloads will be divided into so many tributaries that it will be just a a slow trickle for me. And, I'm not sure what they can do to improve or prevent that.
2453
« on: September 05, 2011, 19:05 »
one possibility would be to phase out the current subs and replace them with subs that limit the size of image you can download, or charge more credits per download, etc
I'd love that, but it doesn't really seem in their best interest. FT just dumped their program that did that. I guess my point was that SS doesn't necessarily benefit when its contributors sell more, so it's hard to say what their goal is to improve things. Are they improving things for them, us, buyers or a balance between?
2454
« on: September 05, 2011, 15:38 »
I'm not sure there is really much they can do to improve. Maybe adding collections, but their huge database of files makes that a large undertaking. They kind of backed themselves into a corner with the subs model. I guess they could go the opposite route and offer more individual sales, but I assumed that was what the acquiring BigStock was for. And that seems to have been kind of a bust (at least from my perspective). It will be interesting to see what they come up with though.
2455
« on: September 02, 2011, 19:03 »
My point was that all new or lesser known sites get dumped on here (regardless of merit). Constructive criticism is one thing, but people pick fights with owners of companies or just a general lack of basic respect. Eventually, they'll have no reason to even bother engaging potential contributors here.
2456
« on: September 02, 2011, 18:43 »
To be honest, I'm not sure why anyone would announce a new site on here. I sure wouldn't. Everybody is so rude and condescending of any new site mentioned. I'm not saying I know anything about this site or am interested in joining, but is it so hard to just say "no thanks" or "I'm not interested". I guess the other sites are treating us so well that we don't need to care about new start ups.
2457
« on: September 02, 2011, 10:19 »
It's interesting to see how ppl talking about 'the future of microstock' almost always excuse themselves from considering the fact that tens of thousands of shots are uploaded every week. : ) Of course you never achieve anything, you can't even have an honest conversation about the situation with yourelves! Just childish... yeah i'm a troll, sure...
That is a concern, but I think things will move more niche for some people. At least, that's where I think my future is. I see selling from my own site and a few other smaller sites. I'll probably sell a lot less, but get to keep more. That's just my theory.
2458
« on: September 01, 2011, 13:07 »
I do understand that, but as I said in my post, what I don't understand is that people like you still see microstock, given all the negative changes these main sites have been imposing every year, still see it viable for the future. I mean, what is there already making you money, fine. But will the future working hours pay off with these ever decreasing commissions? I don't mean just IS.
I'm still optimistic about the future. I think the demand is still there at fair prices and fair royalties. The major players will probably change, but I don't think the demand for microstock is going anywhere.
2459
« on: August 31, 2011, 15:13 »
Does hardly anyone read design magazines anymore Sue?
I thought we were just supposed to look at the pictures?
2460
« on: August 31, 2011, 14:15 »
A stack of posts have been removed for back and forth attacks and not discussing the topic at hand.
I noticed the thread just got quite a bit shorter 
It's a shame. I like the fiery posts and there were some decent points like why wasn't your daughter going to my Alma mater? Very disappointing. Kidding.  Seriously though, I like the fiery enthusiasm of some of the deleted posts. I need an occasional good kick in the pants to get me going. I know I've been critical in the past of people not doing more to better their situation. I'd like to think that I was encouraging (maybe a little mean) for others to open their own shops and stop waiting around for others to do it for them. This isn't directed at any one person. Just a general statement about the content that got removed.
2461
« on: August 31, 2011, 13:33 »
Mac Automator works too. I have a few on my desktop for removing .eps from zips and copy from jpegs.
2462
« on: August 31, 2011, 10:13 »
Instead you to sit here, wasting more and more time whining day in and day out about IS screwing you over while you make less and less each year. A year ago you were all whinging when commissions were cut and a year later you're still here, crying "IS is mean to me" LOL. You're just battered housewives who choose to stay and I have zero sympathy for people who get what they ask for.
LOL. I don't think I've ever worked at any company where the employees (me included) didn't complain and grumble. That doesn't mean I hated working there. It just means I thought there was room for improvement. I've actually enjoyed most of my jobs. As far as iStock, I've said positive and negative things about them over the years . Since I don't have local microstock coworkers to grab a drink with, public forums have really become the only place to vent frustrations or suggest improvements. My friends and family only want to listen so much.  Maybe, I'm stupid or just optimistic, but I think it's good to voice your opinion about changes in hopes that things might actually improve. I don't regret signing up for any of the agencies I signed up for (except for maybe Lucky Oliver because they closed down a few weeks after I uploaded). I feel joining each agency was the right thing to do at the time. I've learned a lot over the years about illustration and the microstock business. Learning more about the business, made me realize the deals I was getting could be better. That and agencies only really started squeezing in the last couple years. Creating a microstock portfolio took a lot of time and was a good amount of work, so removing my portfolio because of some frustration seems a bit foolish. That said, I have left certain agencies and have focused my business to better paying agencies and my own site. I can't say if it will pay off or how long it will take, but there was no guarantee when I started at iStock five years ago. And I've created a pretty solid business since then. One that I think I can make even better with a little hard work. There will probably be some complaining and grumbling along the way though.
2463
« on: August 30, 2011, 14:02 »
What I see in the not too distant future is more consolidation and less sites out there, some copycat sites will die, others absorbed and in the end it will all stabilize into 2-3 major companies. We know that Getty will remain in a strong form considering the amount of properties it has absorbed. SS seems to be positioned as a strong contender with their possible future ownership of other sites with Corbis being a third. In Video Pond5 seems to be doing good and it may very well survive but couldn't leave out the possibility of it being bought out.
I actually see the exact opposite. My income has been slowly spreading out between multiple agencies over the last two years. Companies like iStock are moving closer and closer to the rest of the pack. New players and older smaller players can easily come into the market and compete. If anything, I think the market is primed for a new big player with a contributor focus or multiple smaller focused niche shops.
2464
« on: August 30, 2011, 11:51 »
Istock is making itself irrelevant to the really big independent players.
I'm not a really big independent, but they've become less relevant for me. They used to be 30-40%. Now, they are just 10-20%. It makes it a lot easier to walk away when this month they are only 12%. I suspect this move will push them down even further as more independents transition away.
2465
« on: August 29, 2011, 20:28 »
Color me unconvinced. Eventually even the most passive supplier will decide he or she has endured enough, and will strike back. It may not be rational, it may not be to our benefit, but boy, it'll feel good.
I think the same thing. How many times can you poke a bear with a stick before it tears you apart? The answer may be twice.
2466
« on: August 29, 2011, 20:18 »
In fact, their moves have all been to push non-exclusives out and continue to be.
I can't believe that's true, but all their actions seem to be (unintentionally, maybe?) pushing us in that direction. I guess it's probably just arrogance thinking that we won't leave and that they're number one no matter what. Oh well, I guess I'm happy (in a weird way) because they are making my decision easy for me.
2467
« on: August 29, 2011, 20:01 »
Deleting. It will hurt financially, but iStock is really just a mid-tier agency for me now.
2468
« on: August 29, 2011, 16:30 »
As non-exclusives, we're being forced to sell our images through the PP-program.
So there are two options: either delete your port, or become exclusive. 
I know which option I'm picking.
2469
« on: August 29, 2011, 16:04 »
Glad that I removed my portfolio.
My last four are coming down. One I designated for Photos+ so I think that one is stuck.
When does this kick in? The end of September? I was curious when my lease was up, so, I guess, I'll be joining both of you soon.
2470
« on: August 27, 2011, 11:44 »
What do you want to do? Learning any thing takes time and can be a lot of work, so do it because you enjoy it or want to do it.
2471
« on: August 26, 2011, 18:54 »
I am not nearly as worried about the moderators as I am the future direction of Istock. As an independent it's a hard world over there....so many layers that it becomes nearly impractical to upload.
I was a little worried too, after reading this thread, that some of the real issues won't be looked at because of the tons of minutia/complaints. After all, are nicer moderators and better communication really going to make you happy?
2472
« on: August 26, 2011, 13:56 »
I didn't add that sort of category because I figure anyone that's already there selling vectors at the low prices must feel that they're fair... sorry, I don't mean to be rude and this isn't directed at you, but why would anyone sign up with a company if they thought they were not fair? Lol I would love to add that category but I would have to make it a little condescending like "I think vector prices are low, but I'm there anyway because I'm a doormat". This was the reason for the poll. I'm not so interested in changing vector prices at StockFresh anymore because it's clear that Peter's not going to budge after the last thread. I'm more interested in people's acceptance of the lower price. I find it very odd but it explains a lot about what's going on in this industry. I'm also more concerned about vector prices dropping elsewhere. I appreciate you commenting though. I know you yourself are not a doormat and if I remember correctly, you realised the prices were low after you uploaded.
What really baffles me is not so much that the companies push contributors around (because that is expected) but that contributors let them... and let them do it repeatedly. After IS and then FT dropping commissions twice and watching people stay there, I've sort of lost all hope in this industry surviving longer than five years. I know the agents will survive but serious contributors will have to find alternative ways to sell their images. But even if we come up with alternatives, how will we compete with the microstocks?
I also don't agree about not having rasterised versions of vectors (in my case). I can see why you would think that having flat cartoons, but when you create more complex vectors with textures, blurs, radial gradients etc, it's impossible to convert to an eps. Maybe if they accepted svg's it would be okay but even so, in my case, I create a lot of isolated vectors and it would be quite easy for a buyer to buy the vector, change it slightly, use it as an element in their image and claim it as their own. If they change the colours, shift the paths a little here and there it would be difficult to prove it was mine, especially if it's a small part of a larger image. But I see what you're saying from your point of view.
I hear you, but I'd eliminate 80%-90% of my passive income if I deleted my portfolio everywhere I thought I wasn't getting the best deal. So, I do the only protesting I can afford to do which is send my new material to the sites that deserve it (it's a short list).
2473
« on: August 26, 2011, 12:12 »
I didn't vote because none of the reasons above really apply. I think they should raise prices because they are too low, but I don't think that my images are priced so low that I need to delete my limited portfolio there. I've never been a fan of selling raster versions of vectors, so, personally, I'd rather see that removed.
2474
« on: August 25, 2011, 15:32 »
It's like rain ... on your wedding day.
Or writing a break-up album... about Dave Coulier.
2475
« on: August 24, 2011, 20:37 »
Interesting posts. Mine was all about money because you can easily buy my affection and loyalty (That's how I roll. I'm classy). I told them I don't really care or have a problem with communication. I just want a MUCH HIGHER royalty percentage. The only other thing (besides money, money and more money) I think I mentioned was that pushing higher priced collections on buyers wasn't really benefiting anyone. Also, that I don't favor credit systems and I'd rather pay for what I need as an infrequent buyer.
The Reader's Digest Version:
PAY ME MORE!
Pages: 1 ... 94 95 96 97 98 [99] 100 101 102 103 104 ... 145
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|