|
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 ... 94 95 96 97 98 [99] 100 101 102 103 104 ... 116
2451
« on: April 25, 2014, 08:38 »
I just wonder if there will be any players apart from SS in a few years? for sure a few because there are quite a few agencies with zero sales still surviving
I don't think a monopoly is ever a good idea.
Agreed. I'd love to see a bunch of agencies with strong sales offering us fair commissions. It's nice to dream. 
2452
« on: April 24, 2014, 08:00 »
I've suggested a new 40 subs tier through their "feedback" button. I wouldn't mind a 5% raise on sub sales.
2453
« on: April 23, 2014, 06:10 »
Oddly, the week before last was slow for me at iStock, while last week was slow at Shutterstock. Both seem back to normal as of yesterday.
2454
« on: April 21, 2014, 18:23 »
A number of holidays in Europe this week, definitely.
And next weeks too:
May, 1st: Labour Day in most European countries - and many other countries worldwide as well;
May, 5th: Early May Bank Holiday in UK;
plus, Liberation Day: April, 25th in Italy and Portugal (though unrelated); May, 8th in Czech Republic.
Then, holidays should be over for a while.
Monday, May 26: Memorial Day in the U.S. Kickoff of summer.
2455
« on: April 21, 2014, 14:33 »
Yep. I see the traffic that comes to my website through Facebook, and I also sold an EL through Facebook.
2456
« on: April 21, 2014, 11:23 »
Another problem is that the top number in the poll is $2,500. In all seriousness.
2457
« on: April 19, 2014, 09:54 »
PP for me is what I'd expect based on my regular sales. BME for me (until the coming clawback).
2458
« on: April 18, 2014, 10:52 »
I like that, another good idea. Set our own prices.
I'm actually not a fan of setting our own prices. It makes pricing too random and frustrates buyers. We've always heard that buyers like simplicity. iStock buyers have expressed frustration over the years about finding a photo they want and then realizing that it's a $100+ photo when they were more accustomed to images costing $10-20 at iStock. Pricing at a particular site needs to be consistent.
But it can be consistent and better at the same time. I think most of us would be happy with pricing in the range of $10-50, so an agency with that kind of pricing would be pretty well received.
And a big danger with setting your own prices is that people would immediately set out to undercut you to get more sales.
2459
« on: April 17, 2014, 16:28 »
Here's a question (and not a poke at anyone). What establishes picture quality and value?...
I think it's half personal value (what you believe your work is worth) and half market value (what the market will bear and what people will pay for your work).
I'm hearing that people are getting sales at Offset, so it does seem that not every apple photo is created equal. And I think we can see that. A microstock apple photo is certainly not (usually) the same as a $500 apple photo.
And herein lies the problem... That half-and-half criteria I mention for what makes an image valuable is, in part, determined by the artist, and so there will always be a lot of folks thinking their work is worth $500 when it is definitely not. So we end up with lots of people clamoring for these higher price points and more "fair" pricing, when really their stuff is truly worth a few bucks at most. And that makes it really hard to make the argument that microstock in general is undervalued.
I think if we're going to talk about fair value, we all need to be willing to take a look at our work and be honest about what it's worth. Or what percentage of our work is worth more. I can honestly say that I think absolutely nothing of what I have in microstock right now is worth Offset prices. If we're all being honest with ourselves and each other, I suspect that most folks here would have to say the same. None of us would be selling their stuff in microstock if it was really good enough to demand hundreds of dollars per license.
I'm amazed, honestly, that some of my files rake in hundreds of dollars per year, which means I'll make thousands from each of those files in my lifetime. And I am NOT a talented illustrator. So for me, microstock opened up an opportunity to make money I simply did not have before.
2460
« on: April 17, 2014, 12:58 »
2461
« on: April 17, 2014, 12:34 »
I didn't vote you down, but if you suggested something, but the tattoo artist had to sketch it and come up with the actual design, then I would say he owns it. Not sure if that's your situation.
I remember, when I was designing clothes, I had one client who would say "I need a pair of pants," and I would sketch a bunch of designs and she'd select one and I'd sew the darned things, then she would asked for them to be lengthened or shortened. Yet she got a writeup in the NY Times Magazine and told the reporter she designed her own clothes...and the article was accompanied by a photo of all the clothes I'd designed for her. >:/ Grrrr.
2462
« on: April 17, 2014, 12:22 »
Or someone could just start an online petition (asking for something specific from someone specific) and fly it up the flagpole to see what kind of reception it gets.
2463
« on: April 17, 2014, 10:33 »
It's a difficult argument. I would think many tattoo artists use stock or common imagery in their work (I don't know for sure, as I have no tattoos, but I see the same or very similar tattoos on lots of people). So who owns the copyright? The original designer of the tattoo? The artist who inked it? Lots of images here are keyworded "tattoo." (Some of mine are.) Does the photographer need a release from me and the tattoo artist then?
2464
« on: April 16, 2014, 14:40 »
I had the same issue. Resaving solved it. Apparently one of the rubber bands holding their Rube Golberg IT machine together snapped.
2465
« on: April 16, 2014, 10:22 »
As much as I hate the thought of more competition, I'll tell you that 3/4 of my income comes from Shutterstock. I think that's where you should head first.
2466
« on: April 15, 2014, 10:12 »
Maybe someone can create an Etsy for microstock, where you pay to advertise your images on the site and you set the price. The problem, of course, is that that requires extra work (to describe and deliver the images), and also an upfront investment (however small) which I'm guessing most people wouldn't want to pay.
2467
« on: April 14, 2014, 16:25 »
You want SS to compensate for inflation, LOL, which company or employer has ever done that. My previous employer Xerox told me tough luck when I complained about inflation and wanting a raise. You are just so bitter about SS... whatever.
Inflation is not SS problem, in fact SS is the only agency that didnt cut earnings but did raise them. ALL other agencies have cut royalties and slashed prices, but thats fine with you, because they are not SS.
Based on your response and bottom barrel level of hope I would guess that you are a slave in servitude and pick cotton for a living!
Snip http://tinyurl.com/l6zou4l
A survey by Towers Watson Data Services found that employers were planning to bestow pay increases that will average 2.9% in 2014. Thats up a hair from the 2.8% average increases that employees got in both 2012 and 2013. Kiplinger expects the inflation rate to be 2% in 2014, so an employee who gets the average raise will more than keep up with rising prices.
There is a wide gap between the pay raises for top-rated workers and raises for employees with average or below-average ratings. Towers found that office stars received increases of 4.6% in 2013well above the 2.6% pay hike granted to workers rated average and way more than the 1.3% received by those rated below average.
What you fail to acknowledge is that shutterstock has cut our earnings by not raising prices to buyers nor royalties to contributors in over 8 years. And that has impacted pricing and business strategy at all of the agencies, because they are losing market share to shutterstocks long term price undercutting war.
I started with Shutterstock 2 years ago, and my earnings per download have more than doubled....that's a more than 100% raise over two years. Are you still getting 20 cents per download? If so, there's something terribly wrong.
2468
« on: April 14, 2014, 11:54 »
Why do you keep posting the same articles over and over again? It's nothing new. And you keep ignoring the non-sub options SS has introduced that bring in higher revenue.
That is right it is nothing new and yet many here continue to ignore the reality of the situation. To the point they ignore what "subscription pricing" has done to the entire industry.
The pros did not keep pricing down. The micros could have easily raised pricing and created curated collections as quality rose. They did not and could not because the largest subscription site fully admits that they purposely kept pricing stagnate and low as a business strategy to gain market share.
There are curated collections. The micros have a different business model.
2469
« on: April 14, 2014, 11:16 »
Why do you keep posting the same articles over and over again? It's nothing new. And you keep ignoring the non-sub options SS has introduced that bring in higher revenue.
2470
« on: April 14, 2014, 09:01 »
and FYI, pros like us dumped our years of rejects into the micros and instantly made another annual income, we still put our best stuff in the other sandbox. you should do the same thing - that is if you have what it takes to sell your work for more than your self valued 38 cents.
So pros like you doubled your incomes for a while while helping drive down prices and drive up the quality expected for those prices. Why are you complaining now?
2471
« on: April 09, 2014, 13:15 »
He calls people trolls and then gets his panties in a twist if you call him one back. Lol. (I waited months before returning the favor.)
2473
« on: April 08, 2014, 15:39 »
Leading U.S. Internet gainers: LNKD +6.2%. P +6%. ZU +5%. SALE +7.2%. SSTK +6%. AOL +4.6%.
2474
« on: April 07, 2014, 06:25 »
Here's one. The maps and charts of the only person who studied and took notes.
The map completely corresponds to my reality.
Of course I cannot tell for others.
I can understand that the sales are very little in center Asia for obvious reasons.
But I have always wondered why, in my case, they are close to zero in the usa's west coast {???}
Do they only surf, play basket and make movies there??
Most ad agencies (buyers) are in NY and Chicago. The West Coast agencies are fewer and smaller. There's a lot of film (video) production out west, but that doesn't use much stock. We buy stock photography for our print ads in the East, then fly out west to shoot our commercials. Just a guess. (Also, the Eastern half of the U.S. is more heavily populated.)
Pages: 1 ... 94 95 96 97 98 [99] 100 101 102 103 104 ... 116
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
