|
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 - loop
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 44
251
« on: May 17, 2013, 19:15 »
Do prices matter? In a few week IS can just bump his work up to the signature+ collection regardless of exclusivity
Not, what it matters is that if you want some image from him you (at least talking of real exclusives) just can find there (or in some cases a getty brands)
252
« on: May 16, 2013, 16:11 »
SS began being a just subs site, and was for many years; FT and DT began being only single downloads's sites and were for many years..
253
« on: May 14, 2013, 09:44 »
Doesn't that suggest that buyers either tend to stick to iS or to abandon it. If you've taken out a sub somewhere, it doesn't save money (or make sense) to keep going back and buying some stuff from IS.
Personally, I've almost never used subs (just one time, at CS). Even in the form of single dowloads, specially for print sizes, yoy can find easily much cheaper prices.
254
« on: May 14, 2013, 08:58 »
"IS has finally abandoned the absurd fiction that exclusive's work is, de facto, better than independents'".
As selling items, they are. It is not a matter of quality: it's the fact that independent work can be found elsewhere for a fraction of the price. Whan I've had to buy a file from an independent contributor, alhougth found in IS, I always have ended buying it at the cheapest site.
If most buyers would act this way, independent files would rarely be sold on Istock. As can be seen by the poll on the right, this seems to be not true (even if sales numbers seem to be declining, Istock is still the second best seller in the game for independents overall).
Therefore the price difference between Istock and the other sites does not seem to be the major decision point for buyers. It will be interesting to see if / how that changes if independent images are offered for higher prices and that price difference increases.
Overall (looking from the outside) the move to simplify their collections and pricing structure and to remove the artificial link between exclusivity status and price range (mostly) looks like a move in the right direction.
To make me want to re-upload my portfolio there they have to do something about their royalty percentage though.
Obviously, not all the buyers do that, but many do. I know many others. And the priice difference is definitely a factor: every time Istock has raised prices, a noticeable percentage of customers have gone elsewhere. I was selling about 10x number of files when prices were 1, 2, 3 etc.
255
« on: May 14, 2013, 08:14 »
"IS has finally abandoned the absurd fiction that exclusive's work is, de facto, better than independents'".
As selling items, they are. It is not a matter of quality: it's the fact that independent work can be found elsewhere for a fraction of the price. Whan I've had to buy a file from an independent contributor, alhougth found in IS, I always have ended buying it at the cheapest site.
256
« on: May 14, 2013, 05:29 »
wrong thread
257
« on: April 26, 2013, 05:53 »
* in my research I find a good number of images that share my topics, that have often enough a similar or lesser quality than my products, images that have sold hundreds and thousands of copies
I have a good number of old images that still sell well. Best sellers sell for a reason. Maybe some of this oldies are of " lesser quality than your products" from a technical point of view, but often, even if technically inferior, these images have something, maybe spontanety, maybe truth, maybe concept brillance that makes them to stand up against outright copies or similar concepts and get new downloads nowadays. Example: you get 200 fles of children blowing dandelions in the first page of an an IS search, but the the one that never ceases to sell is the old one from caracterdeisgn, no matter if others are shot with better cameras or if are cleaner, sharper or bigger.
258
« on: April 22, 2013, 16:36 »
Cooperatives have never been open to everyone. What defines a coop is its ownership shared structure, but they don't have to be open to everyone in the world.
You should read these:
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/issues/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_Principles
Far too long, sorry, I don't have the time. Anyway, I was talking of what I know, not of white I can read in places like WIkipedia.
259
« on: April 22, 2013, 09:52 »
Best site is your own area. You know it better than travelling photographers; you are always there, so you don't have to shoot in a hurry, and you can study the best hours and seasons for getting the best light/results.
260
« on: April 21, 2013, 11:38 »
Cooperatives have never been open to everyone. What defines a coop is its ownership shared structure, but they don't have to be open to everyone in the world.
261
« on: March 25, 2013, 14:58 »
Was it ever confirmed by someone at Stocksy that they are image-exclusive? I can't find anything on the Stocksy site saying that.
Confirmed loud and clearly!
I think they should state it in their home page "All images exclusive", or something like that. That's an interesting information for customers.
262
« on: March 24, 2013, 05:00 »
It only made sense. Contributors were on top of the getty/google deal and are screaming about copyright and cheating. So of course getty will come up with 360...no one gets to know anything except them. You might get paid something, but be assured it is NOT going to be in your best interest.
Yep, and it is hidden behind locked doors, which are through a curtain, and guarded by a rabid dachshund.
Speaking of behind locked doors and curtains... Is stocksy opening tomorrow??
who cares??? a new agency brought to you by the same guy who sold you out once. he is a smart business man and has way too many of you suckered.
Yes, maybe Bruce "sold us once", but sometimes I get the feeling that Getty sell us daily.
263
« on: March 21, 2013, 15:23 »
After seeing it, first thing I've thought has been "Istockpro".
264
« on: March 19, 2013, 06:02 »
"You have no right to expect or demand $13 per sale in microstock. That's not what it's about or ever was" (Gostwick)
I'm certainly not going to sell files for cents while I can sell for dollars. That's about shooting, selling and having benefits.
265
« on: March 15, 2013, 13:13 »
I still can't get over the disappointment that Jon Oringer has allowed this to happen. As was expected the rules of the game changed when SS decided to go public.
When I left Istock I decided not to lay all my eggs in the microstock basket.
I do RM, POD and Micro.
Last year I started with contract photography for companies - it's going well.
For me photography is more diversified now.
Microstock is not everything...
That's the right way.
266
« on: March 14, 2013, 17:18 »
Is 38 cents per download much different? Maybe they will make up for the difference by getting more buyers.
I keep reading this same comment over and over about how .27 vs. .38 doesn't make much difference. You're right, on one sale it doesn't. But microstock is supposed to be about volume.
I just calculated the difference for last month (Feb.) between what I earned in .38 subs on Shutterstock and what it would have been if each of those had been .27. Total difference was over $300. I think that's significant. I definitely have uses for that extra $300+ and would miss it if it was gone.
That's assuming you are doing over 3000 sales a month. How many people are actually doing that at SS? 100? 500? 1000? But, like I said, I had this argument before, and most people see it as making a big difference. So, I guess I'm the odd man out. 
I can't believe Lisa does just 3000 subs sales at SS. If that is true, SS loses appeal to me.
267
« on: March 13, 2013, 11:30 »
There was nothing signed. It was just a rule.
So, it must be a quite recent rule, but not retroactive. (And yes, I had to sign at least at two Lypses)
268
« on: March 13, 2013, 10:47 »
Never heard about this politic. Obviously, if you take photos in LA on your own, or using your own models and your own MR for these models, you can upload these photos wherever you want.
Except you couldn't, at least with the existing policy.
Not in the Lypses where I have been. Never signed nothing like that. I read what I sign. But well, I wasn't in Tokyo, I haven't been in any USA Lypse, maybe in these ones people signed different documents. Maybe a differen thing would be if Administrators or Inspectors get travel expenses paid. I really don't know.
269
« on: March 13, 2013, 08:41 »
Never heard about this politic. Obviously, if you take photos in LA on your own, or using your own models and your own MR for these models, you can upload these photos wherever you want.
270
« on: March 12, 2013, 09:09 »
if I may add Tyler too (http://www.istockphoto.com/Stalman)
I wonder what the facts behind this one are?
I thinks he's an administrator at Stocksy, as well as Ivar. Not sure they have been boted, maybe they just resigned.
271
« on: February 25, 2013, 09:50 »
Tell me which company can or will drop 20% revenue? LOL. Surely the ones that are accountable to their shareholders? Dont talk nonsense.
It's a matter of TCO (total cost of ownership).
You forget that this 20% of revenue makes up for 80% of the running costs in servers, support, billing, etc.
How do you know they make any profit from this ?
In other news only 0.5% to 1% of the average users ever click on ads, 99% of your server costs are wasted unless you monetize it with other upsells or you keep it for "brand awareness" or "visibility".
The 20/80 rule holds true in pretty much any market, and many economists suggest to drop the bottom 5% of your worst clients leaving it to the competition (hahaha).
It's a fact IS can barely make any serious profits on all these bottomfeeders with 50 or 200 photos on sale.
Waste of time for both parties and potentially bad for reputation as well as they might expect to make quick bucks with such small portfolios and spreading their anger all over the web.
Nine years scratching the injury. Yo must have the body full of scars.
272
« on: February 22, 2013, 18:25 »
I am really sorry but you sound like there is no other way on this planet to make money other then with Istock.
You can change "Istock" by "microstock" and the meaning is exactly the same
The fact is that Istock is still financially rewarding for many. That's what some people, maybe because of having small, recent portfolios, don't fully realise. 8-9 dollars RPD is hard to beat adding small quantities from another sites. Subjective, yes, but for me is the best option. If next thing is better for contributors, don't doubt, I will be there. It's not blind loyalty, no matter how much some like to believe in this fantasy by unknown reasons, maybe to feel smarter, who knows.
Some talks of eggs of baskets. I prefer to talk of hens. Of course I have other sources of income. Maybe if I should spent time uploading to many sites I wouldn't have the time to make these other sources --not related at all with microstock-- so productive.
273
« on: February 22, 2013, 12:13 »
Move on, leave this agency; after all it doesn't seem to be a great performer.
Inspectors are human and can make mistakes. I don't care. I just care when it's not a mistake but a lack of professionalty of the inspector. When I see that without being an inspector, I know his work an the rules of the agency way better than him.
274
« on: February 17, 2013, 08:44 »
Although not well written, as others have already noted, I completely agree with what she says.
275
« on: February 14, 2013, 16:28 »
Sales are recovering this month at a good pace for me. New files, though, barely sell, but nothing is perfect in this world.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 44
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
