pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - sdeva

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12
251
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2
« on: January 19, 2013, 14:45 »
Its been a chilly day but took a short walk despite all the snow.  Fresh air so refreshes the soul, doesn't it  :) Then sent off a tweet - click to read here:

https://twitter.com/sdeva/status/292715529305718784
 

252
General Stock Discussion / Who dun it?
« on: January 18, 2013, 13:23 »
Who dun it?

It behoves me little to preach on this forum being, as I am, just a stray entrant into this unfortunate business.  Into the business of microstock, I mean. However one cant help but notice, if one takes a step back, that theres some strange going ons - right here, in the microstock industry.

Firstly one cant help noticing that agency after agency has dropped royalties at their sole discretion. 

Agency costs are going up but so are the artists costs of production.  In every business that I know, increase in costs are normally passed on to the consumer (read Buyer) in almost full part.  That is how businesses survive and thrive in an inflationary world.  In any other business if supplier payments are to be reduced it would generally mean protracted negotiations and mutual agreement.   Not so in this business, as facts on the ground have repeatedly shown.

Then there is the business of treatment of copyright works. 

Copyright vests with the artist.  Obviously that appears to mean little if any representing agent has the contractual ability to give it away or sell it off without consulting the artist, for a small one-time return to the artist on a product that was designed for longevity based returns. 

Or to strip off artist identification data from any artwork.  (Lets erase the painters signature off the canvas, shall we).


So then .. who dun it?  What conditions could make anything like this possible?

To put things in perspective we have one group, the contributors.  These are many individuals who form a loose pool of people wielding cameras and suchlike.  While many are skilled in the craft, however our group would not appear to be anywhere as versed in ways of business.  To that end we may actually be a Low Occupational Understanding Team (lets just abbreviate that to LOUT sorry if the abbreviation sounds crass).   We have then on the one hand, us, the Lout.

And on the other part there is the agency or agencies that represent us. 

If youre a painter you might expect your agency to charge a commission of (estimations) 10 or 20 or 25 percent.  In our business it starts at 50% and rapidly escalates to 85%.  Eighty-five percent!  Commission! What kind of idiots are we?

And then, on top of that, we sign up agreements of agencies that allows the agency to operate (seemingly, looking at facts on the ground), fairly at will.  Their will.

So then, who dun it?

The correct answer to that question is us, the Lout.  We did it, to ourselves and to this industry, that today might be standing on the brink of collapse.

Cardinal rule no. 1 -  Business needs checks and balances.

Cardinal rule no. 2 Business needs checks and balances.

Cardinal rule no. 3 Business needs checks and balances.

We forgot all these three rules.

If there are inadequate checks and balances in a business, then one party or the other is relatively free to do as they please, even to take disproportionate advantage if it helps to further their specific business goals.

By not imposing checks and balances from our side, it is us, the lout, who dun it!  We are ultimately responsible if this business will run to ground.  Or at least as responsible as we think any agency might be. 

* We have simply not enforced adequate checks and balances into the business from our side.

* Nothing can meaningfully change till that is done.

The role of the agency cannot be stressed enough.  The agency is our reach to the marketplace.  Without the agency there is no business.  Lets respect that.  But we need a format to ensure that the artist agent relationship is grounded in good and fair principals for all concerned.   Like any other business, we need checks and balances in place.

Practical situation on the ground makes it difficult for us, as an individual contributor, to enforce check or balance.  That is the truth of it.  But we are not alone.  We are a multitude of people who have however, refused to come together for common cause. Up to now that is.  Perhaps its time to change that.  Perhaps its time to do what should have been done a long time ago.  All it might need is a simple association a worldwide association that represents microstock artists.  An association that is funded by annual fee paid by artists; perhaps 50 $ or so per year per artist may do it looking at the thousands that we are.  An elected board could even come from some of the smart, savvy people we see on these forums; some of the people who understand this business and who have the capability to be watchdog on all our behalf.  And a hired lawyer as needed.  Checks and balances could quickly get instituted.  And the business may thrive in a free and fair manner for all parties concerned.

Am I way off track?  Have I missed critical issues that make all this unviable?  As I said Im a stray entrant into this very likeable industry: microstock.  But there are many smart and industry-knowledgeable people on these forums, as one can clearly see when scanning through the posts.  Isnt it time for some of them to come forward on all our behalf and assume a leadership stance for a common platform.   Isnt it also time for the heavy-hitters, the ones with 20000 and 50000 etc images in their portfolios and top-end presence in the business, to come out and join hands with us lesser mortals.  If an industry as a whole becomes unhealthy, the individual businesses will eventually not be healthy either, right!

Proactivity is the call of the hour.  What are you waiting for?


(Opinions expressed are my own and the content is neither intended to be malicious nor to malign anyone). 

www.sdeva.com

253
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2
« on: January 18, 2013, 07:41 »
hi all,

when you mean deactivate it, do you mean you will activate back the next day?

No that would be pointless I think.  Its only IF something will meaningfully change sometime in future... at least that's my intention..

254
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2
« on: January 18, 2013, 05:57 »
Deactivated few files and learnt how the system works, in preparation for 2nd Feb.  Got an email promptly saying.. we regret to inform you that image has been deactivated from database..etc So it appears to work fine.

Painful but necessary..

Have also stopped uploading new content since almost a week.

Just wondering, if in few months things get reversed to normal in a good way - do all deactivated files need to go thru usual upload process once again?  Or do they lie in the depths of some server and can be brought back to life by contributors?

255
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2
« on: January 17, 2013, 09:42 »
I have some files at Thinkstock coming off Istock.  When I delete on 2nd Feb and include these files, will they automatically get taken off at Thinkstock?  Anyone know how effective is that process?

256
General Stock Discussion / Re: GL New iStock? We Should
« on: January 16, 2013, 02:57 »
While it's frustrating to have good photos rejected,  I think we'd be better off if some of these sites specialized a bit, instead of everyone trying to sell everything to everyone, and competing only on price.  So maybe the answer is more agencies, not necessarily large, but having some degree of specialization - people, or objects, or travel, or something else...  which could help buyers too, to some extent.

I couldn't agree more  :).  Over this Christmas period I uploaded 24 files (all photographs) to GL and they accepted SIX.  That's an acceptance rate of 25%.  Funnily enough pretty much all those other images got accepted at the other sites (I'm on 10+ stock sites) - and some of those rejected by GL have already started to sell well.  So go figure their strategy!  On other side GL sells VERY LITTLE despite all those high handed rejections (at least in my case).  Someone on another thread suggested that they are pressing more into illustrations, vectors etc which sounds fine to me.  That could be sound business strategy in these times of aggressive microstock competition as it focuses on a niche.  However if this is the case they should state it clearly - and not waste contributor's time uploading photography works and getting next to everything rejected.  That's what I think.

that is very weird, sure they are a little picky but I don't think they are unfair, looked into your iStock portfolio and I don't see a reason for rejections at GL, what were the rejections reasons? that said my GL portfolio is smaller than at SS

many different ones such as- We are not interested in this image. Thank you - Isolation (including one or more images that had not even been isolated) - Tones - Poor use of focus - Lighting - Contains artifacts, noise or aberation.  My issue is that at least over 90% of these same images have gotten accepted at other websites and some already started to sell well despite low January effect.  So just dont get it!!  :-\

257
General Stock Discussion / Re: GL New iStock? We Should
« on: January 16, 2013, 01:03 »
While it's frustrating to have good photos rejected,  I think we'd be better off if some of these sites specialized a bit, instead of everyone trying to sell everything to everyone, and competing only on price.  So maybe the answer is more agencies, not necessarily large, but having some degree of specialization - people, or objects, or travel, or something else...  which could help buyers too, to some extent.

I couldn't agree more  :).  Over this Christmas period I uploaded 24 files (all photographs) to GL and they accepted SIX.  That's an acceptance rate of 25%.  Funnily enough pretty much all those other images got accepted at the other sites (I'm on 10+ stock sites) - and some of those rejected by GL have already started to sell well.  So go figure their strategy!  On other side GL sells VERY LITTLE despite all those high handed rejections (at least in my case).  Someone on another thread suggested that they are pressing more into illustrations, vectors etc which sounds fine to me.  That could be sound business strategy in these times of aggressive microstock competition as it focuses on a niche.  However if this is the case they should state it clearly - and not waste contributor's time uploading photography works and getting next to everything rejected.  That's what I think.

258
General Stock Discussion / Re: GL New iStock? We Should
« on: January 15, 2013, 16:24 »
GL has been a no go for me.  They rejected a lot (even files that were accepted and selling well at other sites including Istock, SS, DT etc etc - I'm on 10+ stock sites).  I just found it waste of time to upload content to them and have lots of it rejected.  Then someone on another thread commented that GL was probably more into vectors, illustrations etc as against photographs - which if correct could be the reason for their rejecting so many of my good images.  If all this is true then GL is not really for contributors like me who just do photography work. 

But moreover, on top of all those rejections GL manages to get me very little sales. 

So for the time being - till it becomes clear what kind of content they want - and till they can get somewhere near decent sales, I think its just waste of time to upload to them.  I would rather support DT or another site more at this time.

259
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2
« on: January 15, 2013, 10:11 »
Please, could someone explain what this deactivation link does?

260
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2
« on: January 15, 2013, 08:33 »
Why Don't we get behind a site like GL, our images need a good home after D-Day, we could use D-Day to hit iStock and at the same time help build up another site for our work! D-Day at iStock means V-Day at GL a dual message would be better as it is also a positive one for buyers. Picking a small site like GL and boosting its business is good for all of us. We could then take all our negative energy and focus on driving buyers to a new place for our content. I would love to sing the praise of another just to get my mind off if iStock.

Sorry my experience with GL has not been positive  >:(.  I find their rejections unacceptable as they have managed to reject my images that have been accepted by other sites (I'm on 10+ sites) including Istock, SS etc.  On other hand they sell pretty little!  Someone commented on another thread that they may be prioritizing illustrations, vectors etc as against photographic images and in that case your proposal may be relevant for some of those contributors.  Just my take.  However the Deactivation day sounds like a plan and I will participate unless things change and its called off.

261
Yep upload away - and then if you want you can deactivate the files on 2 FEB as many contributors plan to do  ;D

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/d-day-(deactivation-day)-on-istock-feb-2/msg291035/?topicseen#new

262
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2
« on: January 14, 2013, 23:09 »

With a firm date of Feb. 2 - Ground Hog Day, we can coordinate to send a powerful message message to Getty.

Some exclusives have mentioned in the Istock thread that it might be a good day to turn in the crown too. 

Also, with a set date, it might make for a more compelling story for the media. 


I'm in - will deactivate certain number of my files on this date.  In the reason do we write 'Deactivate day' or what? Great initiative .. that may not only send a resounding message but also become a forerunner as a meaningful action platform for microstockers!!  :)

263
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Image Deactivation Tally for iStockPhoto
« on: January 14, 2013, 08:48 »
Haven't deleted yet but have stopped new uploads to allow an opportunity for clarification/ corrections to take place.  If that does not happen > really like the idea of 'delete day' when we all take down some of our files.

264
General Stock Discussion / Re: Why do WE get paid commission?
« on: January 08, 2013, 04:05 »
That's absolutely right !! And to add insult to injury many of these so called agencies are on the path to dropping the "commissions" further - as for example Istock, then Fotolia, and now 123RF.  One wonders where this industry is headed .. because the current situation is increasingly untenable..

265
123RF / Re: 123RF still offering 50% comm?
« on: January 07, 2013, 06:43 »
Truly pathetic that agencies can just make announcements and drop the contributors cut!  I'm trying to think in which other business could companies simply start paying their suppliers less without need for two-sided consent or agreement?  I think, at the core, the fault lies in contributors simply signing up to one-sided contracts when we sign up with stock agencies.  That allows them to mess us about as they pretty much want.  We swallowed reduction by Istock, then Fotolia and now its 123RF and next who know which.  Thank god for Shutterstock - they seem far more professional and no surprise that they are so well positioned in the business. 

266
How about this as your approach since you want to make money at this game-

Join all the Top Tier (Big 4)  and all the Middle Tier plus Envato, GL, Yay and Alamy  and not worry about the commissions. If the commission is your main goal that RM is your business and Not RF...


Tom


Tend to agree except GL because they seem to reject a lot and sell very little for me.  See link: http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/cant-figure-out-gl-stock!/

267
General Stock Discussion / Re: Cant figure out GL stock!
« on: January 06, 2013, 23:02 »
I have a very high rejection rate and still waiting for a sale. They do seem to accept photos that I like that get rejected elsewhere though, I think they might look more at artistic rather than technical quality. Very easy to upload to so I stick with them!

Yes, I see what you mean.  Although, unfortunately, being easy to upload doesn't pay any bills .. so I'm wondering if my time isn't better spent dropping low sale agencies like this one, and committing that time to shoot more images and upload them to the agencies that actually make sales.  Especially since (going by the last comment) they seem to want to prioritize vectors illustrations etc. over photography. Its a decision I need to make ... ::)

268
General Stock Discussion / Re: Cant figure out GL stock!
« on: January 06, 2013, 05:15 »

My only concern is,  they seem to press too much on the graphic aspects, vectors, illustrations, etc, so much so that I know buyers are getting confused, dont really associate them with actual photography for sale.
I have actually recommended a few buyers to go there and they came back to me saying they want images not illustrations so it speaks for itself.
They should do something about this.

Thanks for sharing that.  Wonder why they dont say something about it in their terms.  That way they wont mislead either buyers or contributors (photographers), and perhaps have a clearer working model in terms of professional business stance.  I'm simply not finding them good to work with at this time ..

269
General Stock Discussion / Cant figure out GL stock!
« on: January 06, 2013, 04:14 »
I decided to sign up with GL stock images few months back and just cant figure out this agency.  On the one hand they reject my images a lot - the same images that are accepted at almost all other agencies.  This includes some images that have been accepted even at Istock and are good sellers there.  Does this mean that GL stock has tougher standards than everyone else including Istock, Shutterstock and others?  But worse still is the fact that they manage to sell very little from my images that they have accepted after all those rejections.

Net result for me as a contributor - lots of time wasted uploading and getting images rejected - and then - there's little in sales to show for it.  Cant understand what's with this agency?  I'm doing things same as with all the other 10 agencies I contribute to, so seriously dont think that I'm doing smthng wrong. Am seriously wondering if I should hang in a while longer or pull out instead of squandering my time with these guys.

ANyone else with any experience with this agency?

270
iStockPhoto.com / Re: 10 cent royalties
« on: January 03, 2013, 10:04 »
Had an 8c just last week  :-[

271
General Stock Discussion / Re: December 2012 Stats Thread
« on: January 01, 2013, 21:09 »
My december 2012 was nothing to write home about!  SS held (slightly increased) over December 2011 and 1 or 2 of my newer sites, like PD held up quite well.  But Fot and DT tumbled well below November performance and even lower than December last year.  Is held though barely.  However year on year 2011 to 2012, I almost tripled my stock income mainly because increased portfolio up by about 800 images and signed up to a few new sites.  So that's the positive of it.  I now have images on 11 stock sites, most of the top and mid tier companies and even some low earner ones.  However haven't signed up with Depositphotos yet because still unsure about their pricing policy that seems to drag the rate structure further down.  Not to mention the free image giveaway etc programs ...  Although looking at some of the contributor comments, perhaps I should consider signing up with them. A case of if you cant beat 'em join 'em!

272
Off Topic / Re: Happy New Year
« on: January 01, 2013, 08:31 »
Wonderful, wonderful New Year and much success to all !!

273
123RF / Re: 123RF credits targets
« on: December 21, 2012, 07:42 »
Down to contributor level 3 - seriously disappointing outcome for months of hard work and uploads made to 123RF.  Looking at the commission restructurings (read as lining the company's pockets at expense of contributor) also done by the likes of Fotolia, Istock etc.,  I feel that these are the people destroying the microstock business by making it increasingly worthless for contributors to commit time and meaningful effort!  Sad.

274
General Stock Discussion / Re: November Stats
« on: December 02, 2012, 22:10 »
BME by far mainly due to payouts from all the 10 sites I actively contribute to (except GL which is a new add on for me and Stockphotomedia where I stopped uploading long time ago since they just didn't seem to be able to sell).  Payout came from all the others including SS, Istock, FT, DT, Canstock, Bigstock, 123RF, PD, Veer and Alamy.  Its great to have Alamy contribution because they usually generate high RPD sales.. unfortunately they've sold nothing for me since about a month now ... bummer!  SS tops my rankings with steady payouts month over month - how I love them!!

275
Veer / Re: Veer experiencing site-wide issues at the moment
« on: November 21, 2012, 17:24 »
Hi all,

Just a heads up that Veer is experiencing site-wide issues at the moment, affecting both customer and contributor tools.  Our apologies for the disruption, we are working to resolve the situation asap.

Also, you can check our twitter feed @veercontributor for further updates, as well as reach us at [email protected] for specific questions.

Update: The site is now up and running, please message us if you see further issues

Hi,

Are the site wide issues affecting payments?  I got notice that I'd been paid about a week back.  No money has showed up in my paypal yet.  Sent email reminders and waiting for response.

Hi Ryan, thanks for prompt reply on email - and the payment arrived shortly after to my paypal account. Cheers and appreciate your support!

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors