|
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 - xst
26
« on: February 26, 2012, 12:52 »
lack of communication. Things got quiet in here quick, and an email I sent to 123RF last week has gone unanswered. I'm not impressed by their lack of tact in handling the contributor relations part of this.
For the past 3 years, none of my e-mails to 123rf has been answered. NEVER!!!
28
« on: February 09, 2012, 17:38 »
As you can see from my site - my models don't really care 
29
« on: February 08, 2012, 13:08 »
You don't understand. They can choose when to report your income (and for them it's beneficial to report it as soon as possible - so they can deduct it). This money is now in shows on their book as accounts payable. You can elect how to make accounting Cash or Accrual ( http://www.toolkit.com/small_business_guide/sbg.aspx?nid=P06_1340) Its' up to you. Your choice and their choice doesn't have to be the same. IRS does get those forms, but if they ever audit you, you just have to show that you get this money to your account next year and DECLARED it next year. Again, talk to you accountant. @ Ed: I don't have a link. It was a copy/paste of their response.
@ xst: I don't have any choice, they have declared the income to the irs (when you receive a 1099, the irs receives it also). I really prefer to declare money that went to my bank account. It fits them, no me. It's not a lot, but it's a question of principle.
30
« on: February 07, 2012, 18:12 »
You may elect how to report income for your business - at the year of getting payed or at the year when you sell image.
Basically there are two types of accounting - both are legal - you can pick one is better for you.
Consult your accountant
31
« on: January 19, 2012, 16:20 »
got the money.
Looks like posting there triggers something
32
« on: January 19, 2012, 16:15 »
requested on 3rd.
Asked support on 10th.
Got replay asking to wait.
Send another support ticket today.
Got reply that it's forwarded to accounting.
Waiting.
33
« on: January 19, 2012, 15:22 »
got payment
34
« on: January 19, 2012, 15:22 »
go e-mail from Ryan
"Our apologies for the delay, it does appear that there was a holdup on the accounting side of things, but they have assured me that the payments will process by tomorrow."
35
« on: January 18, 2012, 16:50 »
Has anybody got the money?
36
« on: January 17, 2012, 11:33 »
[email protected]What's the support email address for Veer? I can't seem to find it on Veer site.
Thanks.
37
« on: January 17, 2012, 08:37 »
same problem.
I've sent e-mail to support.
Never had issue with them paying on time.
That's the first time
38
« on: January 11, 2012, 16:42 »
Also,
I've just noticed - number of under .20c downloads on IS is too high last week for me
39
« on: January 11, 2012, 15:09 »
Good idea. I've gone the same root for FT when they changed their subs plan last time. And I'm going to do the same for IS. Lisa, What are your thoughts about appropriate delay time? I was thinking about 6-9 months. Meanwhile, I'm going to hold off uploading any new content until after it's been on SS and the rest for awhile, to give them an advantage over TS. Beyond that, it's wait-and-see.
40
« on: January 05, 2012, 17:06 »
Finallyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
got selected in ALAMY...
I cant believe it... it was my 3rd QC (could not pass 2 QC) so was thinking my photos will be reviewed at last
but...... very strange that my 3rd QC result came out within 24 hrs where as my 1st QC result took 10 days and 2nd QC result took 24 days......
I am really thankful to all of you who replied my thread and mails with valuable suggestions without which it was impossible for me to clear my test in alamy...
special thanks to Shadysue (Eli), Leaf, Racephoto, BaldricksTrousers, stockastic, paulo and karimala for their very useful mails and suggestions that boosted a newbie like me
:-)
Very simple. They have rule, that if you failed - they don't let you know about this for several weeks, to "encourage" you be better next time. So first two times your files were reviewed within the same 24 hours
41
« on: December 29, 2011, 21:17 »
Once in 6 months I'm trying to upload new batch there to see it their reviewing practices changed.
Last attempt - it took them over month to review it and as usual 75% rejected with reason "Stronger images accepted".
They are the most picky and bring the least money.
I think they still don't understand what they bought and what to do with it.
Good luck.
I'll try in 6 months again.
42
« on: December 28, 2011, 19:34 »
Do you really think that selection is that important now? 10 million or 12 million images? Most of the buyers can find what they need on any collection of 5-10 millions files. (Very rarely you need something that specific...) When I buy my main criteria are: 1. if I can buy small credit package of the just right size. (If I have small project today I don't want to pay for 10000 credits - especially in case of IS where they expire after 12 months (And I hate this expiration) 2. How easy and flexible search is You may be right that price isn't the only factor, but I expect it is still a major factor. Istock had a big head start and a large customer base, so the response to the high price would likely be somewhat gradual rather than sudden, and the worsening economic conditions have also made buyers more price sensitive than they were in the past.
Istock has the largest profit margin in the microstock industry, charging the highest to buyers and paying lowest to photographers. The service they provide just isn't superior enough to justify that profit margin. They are increasingly uncompetitive, and their business will keep sinking. This latest irrational move to abuse non-exclusives even further will backfire on them. Most non-exclusives will stop uploading (and even remove the files they already have there), leading to an inferior selection that will drive buyers away.
43
« on: December 28, 2011, 18:45 »
We need to think about strategies to mitigate this. I personally now upload new content to IS with 6-9 months delay. There maybe other ideas. After holidays I'll probably open new thread in hope people will share some other ideas. Under this best match it doesn't matter if we leave or not, we've been made irrelevant (though maybe some people will search by DLs). In any case, even if I earn almost nothing at iS next month, I will still want my $200 from TS.
It matters if we leave in that if all indys were to leave, meaning pull their ports, TS would cease to exist unless they open up a new "application process" specifically for that cheapo charter sites. And with this latest shift, and if it is any indication of what the future holds, IS will just try to make indys happy with a few hundred bucks a month to use as a carrot to keep uploading. For example my TS earnings in nov were close to $300, something like $270. Many indys will stay and upload for that few hundred bucks. They point I am making is that I have always summized that when RCA came out it was the end of indys making anything on IS, and that IS would try to make the IS collection exclusive and dump what they consider the afterbirth (indys work) into TS to keep that collection alive and competing with other sub sites. Seems to be happening now. Just for the record I have had 3 dls there in the last 10 days with a 1900 port and gold canister...pft
Agree with your points, but would like to add that those $200 - $300 for current participating members of TS are going to drop a lot when/if Istock ever manages to get its act together and transfer all those millions of non-exclusive files over to TS. We will all most likely be getting pennies out of them after that.
44
« on: December 28, 2011, 18:21 »
My whole response started form explaining that analogy with TV manufacturing doesn't hold. That's all. Frankly - my solution - it's like in acting. There are some few who can have this as main job. Most of the people have to get another main job. (in you case - main job is assignments) Yes, Johnny Depp may earn a lot. But for extras expect to get real money from it? Be realistic... There is no enough business for everybody. Yes, duplication of images is almost free, however if you take into account the whole process of crating image
Don't forget that photographer has cost - equipment, props, models, insurance, gas, computer for retouching etc
On top of that if it's business you need to make profit to live.
How many images should you sell for pennies to make it viable?
Now market isn't infinite.
How many images can be sold?
Now divide those numbers and you get maximum number of photographers who can live from it.
It's obviously simplification, but
I bet we have many more photographers there.
And only very small fraction of them lives of this business.
For vast majority it's pocket money to pay for hobby. (Unlike TV business)
That's the only reason for prices being that low.
its' like software - there are freeware applications.
But if you want to develop software and live of it, you cannot charge .25c for MS Word
"However you dont see now company producing 3inch TV and selling them for 5 dollars. I bet you'd find market for this. Why? Because its not viable business model. You do see now WEB sized images for pennies."
If you could make a copy of a tv with the click of a mouse you would see tv's selling for pennies. Once an image is created, selling a copy involves no cost of materials, just the administrative costs of running a stock agency. Selling a digital image can be a very profitable business, once the overhead is brought under control.
So what's your solution? Ignore the market and price your images according to what you think they're worth? Or do you work within the constraints of the market and adapt your costs to suit? If you can't then they'll always be someone who can.
It would be interesting if agencies just let us set our own prices for what we thought our work was worth (like most suppliers can or at least try to). Unfortunately that would probably be too unpredictable for the bean-counters to deal with.
45
« on: December 28, 2011, 16:41 »
Yes, duplication of images is almost free, however if you take into account the whole process of crating image Don't forget that photographer has cost - equipment, props, models, insurance, gas, computer for retouching etc On top of that if it's business you need to make profit to live. How many images should you sell for pennies to make it viable? Now market isn't infinite. How many images can be sold? Now divide those numbers and you get maximum number of photographers who can live from it. It's obviously simplification, but I bet we have many more photographers there. And only very small fraction of them lives of this business. For vast majority it's pocket money to pay for hobby. (Unlike TV business) That's the only reason for prices being that low. its' like software - there are freeware applications. But if you want to develop software and live of it, you cannot charge .25c for MS Word "However you dont see now company producing 3inch TV and selling them for 5 dollars. I bet you'd find market for this. Why? Because its not viable business model. You do see now WEB sized images for pennies."
If you could make a copy of a tv with the click of a mouse you would see tv's selling for pennies. Once an image is created, selling a copy involves no cost of materials, just the administrative costs of running a stock agency. Selling a digital image can be a very profitable business, once the overhead is brought under control.
46
« on: December 28, 2011, 15:28 »
However you dont see now company producing 3inch TV and selling them for 5 dollars. I bet you'd find market for this. Why? Because its not viable business model. You do see now WEB sized images for pennies. "Other sites" contain none of istock exclusive content, have the same images of the major independent produces and these sites are made more relevant by having what exactly?" It seems to me they have what would be called a national brand. Istock is currently the only site holding up the prices of microstock. Look what has happened to the cost of TV's. I saw where a 42" tv is on average cheaper than a ipad. How is that possible. without istock or a company who fills that roll prices will collapse just like they have done in TVs and PCs and any other product that has the same suppliers competing in a market place without major differing traits besides pricing.
I've never known such dillusional and blinkered ramblings. TV's have remained at roughly the same actual price for about 30 years (in common with quite a few other appliances) whilst employing vastly better technology/design and whilst wages have increased in the Western world by a factor of 10. If that hadn't happened you'd now be paying about $6000 for a 28" model using 1980 technology. The story is much the same in the car industry. The world moves on and productivity is always increasing. Most things get better and cheaper every year (just like the digital technology you probably employ to produce your images). It's called 'progress'.
Why do you think that your images alone in the world have a right to command ever-increasing prices, despite the supply of such images considerably outstripping the demand for them?
Btw, this is why the ipad costs what it does and why Apple struggle to make a profit on them;
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-03-14/tech/30012225_1_ipad-apple-stores-pa-semi
47
« on: December 28, 2011, 14:05 »
In the past I was steering all clients of my design business to IS, now I recommend Dreams Besides sticking a link at the bottom saying this file is cheaper (way cheaper) at SS and every other rf site. You saw the recent ad by Bigstock saying we have the same files for 60% cheaper. I am not sure how this business models survives. Price is not a factor that can be overcome by (features, service, or fancy colors). Yes istock took more profit from independents, but they lost a lot of market share and strengthened their competitors. Not a very good long term business strategy.
Well, considering that (to my knowledge) EVERY other microstock site charges less than Istock and pays contributors a higher percentage, it seems to be quite doable. In fact, most of the other major sites are thriving as Istock appears in decline. Seems to me that it is Istock who has strengthened their competitors, and does not have a good long-term business strategy.
FWIW, it was not the price differential that has caused Istock's buyers to abandon it for SS. There has been a big price difference for a number of years. Whatever the reason for the shift was, it most certainly wasn't the price difference on independent files.
48
« on: December 28, 2011, 14:01 »
SS (so far) 1. hasn't cut my commissions. 2. Gives me .38c without requiring exclusivity 3. hasn't changed best match to make almost all my images invisible (for example make search for "sensual couple" - first 100 pages of 201 have ONE non exclusive image) 4. counts ALL downloads toward higher payout level @lagereek
Christian,
Hope Christmas was good and that you were unaffected by the hurricane/storm - you are up north somewhere right?
Loads of things are going on at the moment, but I'm trying to keep a cool head and not doing anything rash or jump to conclusions, I've weathered many storms before during my 10 years in this industry, you probably have experienced many more.
As usual all the noise is coming from what seems to be a very vocal minority, but I'm starting to feel that a few comments made by contributors that seems to share my cool head have made me take these recent developments a little bit more seriously. I'm suffering at iStock at the moment, not catastrophic, but it is negative. Whether this is the result of industry developments, the tinkering with the best match search or something else I haven't worked out fully just yet. Hard to base decisions on only anecdotal information.
However, I fail to see the vast difference between the subscription model and it's pricing at Shutterstock versus TS/Photos.com - a few cents perhaps, but that's it right? Is it those few cents that make you this angry/annoyed/aggravated or have I missed something?
The way you "paint" iStock as basically untrustworthy (although in the past you seemed to have a completely different opinion) I also don't understand why you still have any images left there whatsoever? It doesn't seem to be worth it to you, both in terms of revenue nor the negative energy it seems to generate with you. Perhaps it would be better for you to drop them completely and not have to spend your time/energy on iStock issues? Only looking out for your best as a friend 
I'm not a fan of the the low-priced subscription model at all, but at the moment I would put Shutterstock in the same bucket at TS/Photos.com in that regard. Please explain to me the BIG difference between Shutterstock's subscription model and TS/Photos.com. Obsviously Shutterstock is much larger and generate more sales, but pricing is not that different to warrant your upset?
49
« on: December 26, 2011, 20:04 »
search for "Sensual couple" gives first non-exclusive image on page 140!!!
That's obvious,
They've just decided to push independents out competely.
I really disrespect them as much as Fotolia now
50
« on: December 14, 2011, 18:46 »
I've had 100 photos there for several months, and have gotten just 20 zooms and zero sales. Most of these images sell on microstock now and then, some frequently. If this is a 'long' game, I may not live long enough.
I think most of my sales never showed in zooms list. Go figure...
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
