|
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 - wilddingo
26
« on: September 02, 2009, 22:09 »
wilddingo,
I would agree with you if the image was not in microstock. Once it's there, it's valued differently. GA may set a higher price since there is obvious interest, but trying to negotiate it as macrostock doesn't make sense to me. One has to decide what market he is dealing with.
The image on IStock is microstock. Standard size, standard price tiers. If the publisher is satisfied with standard microstock sizes, then the publisher can pay standard microstock prices. The image they want from him is custom. Different thing, see? It cannot be created other than by him, and he will need to invest time and money to service this request. Everything from creating the image required to corresponding, billing and collecting from the publisher is time and money. If the publisher wants to upsize the image themselves, let THEM spend their time and money, not his. You people have got to understand that images distributed through your agents are priced by your agents according to your agents' cost bases, but images distributed through you are priced by YOU and have a completely different cost base. As for usage rates... you need to get a handle on what your product is. It's not freakin' pictures, it's intellectual property. You can buy a song on iTunes for a buck. You get a standard recording, sampled at a standard rate as originally recorded on a CD, plus the right to listen to it on a personal level on a certain number of iTunes devices. If you want to use the same song on a commercial level to promote a book, and you want the original artist to record a custom version at a custom sampling rate just for you, it's not the same thing, capisci? You dudes have got to understand that there is a BIG difference between generating cashflow and making a profit. Licensing custom images for piddling microstock prices below your cost base will generate cashflow but put you at a loss and you'll go broke eventually. Licensing images with healthy margins will give you profit and allow you to grow and expand your business.
27
« on: September 02, 2009, 20:19 »
I'm aware that there is a lot of competition out there and if they can buy another picture for a few dollars and my picture for $1,000+, I think they will choose another picture. The can also use my picture and enlarge it and save this money. Dude, do you think they spent 10 minutes picking your image for the front cover? Heck, no! They looked at probably hundreds, if not thousands. They probably tried composing several images with type on the cover, with several crops, and probably circulated these choices over and over again until they found the freakin perfect one. That freakin perfect one is your freakin picture, dude. They put a lot of money and effort picking it because their whole project is riding on this image. If its not perfect, the book wont sell. Its that fing simple. If they dont like your price, its not going to be cheap for them to change it now. They already convinced everyone they needed to convince that your picture is the best. If they want a cover image from an RM outlet, theyre looking at around $2K, so youre giving them a freakin deal at half price. By the way, if youre in business licensing intellectual property, dude, you dont give a rats ass what the competition is selling for. You know your costs, you find your opportunities, and you pick your price to give YOU a freakin profit. If you cant make a profit on a deal because your client is too cheap, then youve got an unprofitable client in your hands and you dont want him. Let your competitors have him. Theyre going to lose money on him, not you. Dingo's going to let you in on a little secret. Acquiring, maintaining and servicing clients is very costly. Both in terms of time and money. You only want to keep the ones that allow YOU to make a profit. Everyone else is just a waste of your time and money and they can go take a flying leap for all you care. Your competition might have a lower cost base than you and they might be able to offer licenses for less, but you'll never lower your cost base by keeping expensive clients and then selling for less. Are you in this to MAKE money or to GIVE IT AWAY?
28
« on: September 02, 2009, 17:56 »
I actually need to do some post processing on the raw file again to provide them with the higher resolution file, I also need to increase the size by 5%. Should I charge for this, and if yes, how much?
Dude, dont be a bozo. The publisher is not buying from IStock, theyre buying from you. Your overhead is not the same as IStocks. IStock overhead is spread over millions of images. Your overhead for this request has to be recouped by this ONE sale. If you dont recoup your overhead on this sale, then this bozo client just made you lose money. You charge for EVERYTHING and especially, in this case, your time to handle this particular request. You charge for the time it takes to read their initial e-mail, to write a response, to load the image up in PS, to tweak the image up 5%, to zip it up, to e-mail it back to them, and everything else that might be remotely associated with handling this request including the time you wasted asking the microstock bozos here how to charge for their intellectual property (short answer: they dont know, which is why they all sell it for $1). If the publisher e-mail made you nervous and gave you too much gas, you should charge them for the Maalox too. Once you add up all your time, you tack on a usage fee, which in the case of a front cover you can start negotiating at upwards of $1,000.00. Remember, your image is going to sell their book. No one is going to buy their book if they put someone elses image on it because if this was the case, they wouldve picked another $1 image from the millions available where they saw yours. If they dont like your price, you can tell them to come kiss Wilddingo's ass.
29
« on: September 01, 2009, 12:15 »
Is it only me or is $5-$15 for a written article completely inadequate. It's a single sale on a specialized topic.
It's only you. You bunch already spend your free time working for nothing supplying images to your agencies at a loss, then spend more free time over here writing about it for no remuneration at all. The dude is giving you 5 shiny bucks for something you now do for free.
30
« on: August 31, 2009, 20:25 »
Not to be rude but sounds like a scam, he/she has replied to a few people without saying what sean (and anyone remotely interested) would like to hear about terms and conditions. No link to a business, nothing at all really.
What do a bunch of microstockers know about reading terms and conditions anyway? Aren't these the same people that are ecstatic to sign up with any microstock agency that will accept them then turn around and complain about the commission rates, rejections, and piddling returns they signed up for? You don't have to be a super hound like Dingo to sniff out a guy signing his posts "Peter" with a "fotoart" e-mail in Canada. http://www.fotoart.ca/store-history.html
31
« on: August 31, 2009, 05:20 »
yes dude I am a novice, ergo (it's in the dictionary) I seek and generally recieve professional advice in this forum - and I'm very grateful for it. Sweet.
Dude, asking for "professional" advice on a microstock forum has its pros and cons. Over time you'll learn that less than 1% in microstock are pros which means 99% of the advice you get are from cons. Sweet!
32
« on: August 30, 2009, 19:48 »
Don't do this. It will have absolutely no effect, you'll just give away your work for free.
You are the man! Dude, I agree wholeheartedly! Don't give your work away for free when you could be paying someone to take it from you. Topic for next discussion: What does "wholeheartedly" mean anyway?
33
« on: August 30, 2009, 19:36 »
Has anyone come across this in the business? Am I missing an opportunity if I pass on this.
The majority contributing to microstock are actually losing money on every $1 sale they make. If you're asking these people for advice on gauging business opportunities, then dude, you're either worse off than they are, or a complete novice in stock.
34
« on: August 21, 2009, 11:33 »
As explained above, the problem does not appear to be with the monitor. 
If it's not the monitor, then it must be the computer. Dingo has found that the best way to determine whether a computer will blow up is to check if the computer is being carried by a suicide bomber. Have you verified this?
35
« on: August 20, 2009, 21:00 »
I'm hoping that if one of them is going, it's the monitor. Connect your monitor to your laptop and find out.
36
« on: August 20, 2009, 17:47 »
what?
No "Microstock tormentor" category?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
