|
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 - heywoody
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 58
251
« on: June 12, 2014, 17:10 »
ie at work, chrome at home both behaving the same way
252
« on: June 11, 2014, 16:25 »
Since today, to look at downloads I have to accept the terms and conditions go through a login, navigate from history to other options and then select the downloads page (which is where the original bookmark is pointing). This is a real pain!!
253
« on: June 11, 2014, 15:19 »
At some point we'll see significant decline in earnings - the tsunami of microstock submitters has not reached it's crest yet. Most of us already notice some decline in earnings because our images are getting lost in a see of similar content. You can imagine what will happen when SS will be accepting a million images a week. I think unavoidably there will be a phase when most photographers decide that this kind of activity is just not worth it anymore. For full-timers like me it will be a pretty low point. However... I do believe that after passing that point the industry will not be dead completely - it will evolve and will probably take a different shape, and hopefully those of us who decide to stay with this business can evolve with it. I don't see a need for images disappearing, and I don't see people providing high quality content for free.
In order to preserve a pipeline of usable content, agencies need to keep things just above that point - I think we're pretty close to it now.
254
« on: June 07, 2014, 16:01 »
I'd take 1c per download if I got enough of them 
255
« on: June 07, 2014, 16:00 »
The thing is HUMAN reviewers can make mistakes...
Even at that though, a buyer will more than likely be able to find an equivalent food shot that suits so the company does not lose out and that is the name of the game - not about justice or fairness, just what will or will not make a buck for the company - course, I'm naive so what do I know.
256
« on: June 07, 2014, 15:05 »
Yeah - 95% quality rather than 96%
257
« on: June 07, 2014, 10:26 »
Here's the thing. The height of the bar is not set by the sites, it's based on the quality of the competition (the high jump would be a bit higher at the olympics than at a local track meet). Photographers in particular are competing with high end professionals with high end kit - always gonna be a bit of an ask.
258
« on: June 07, 2014, 08:38 »
Yes ingenuous - although I guess you meant disingenuous :-D
I question your judgement in questioning my judgement - experienced successful guys like Rob seem to be having no problems, inexperienced unsuccessful guys like me are having no problems and this whole thing just seems like folks feelings are hurt. That aside, which is more likely
a) The bar has been raised an some people are struggling?
b) Someone has got it in for you?
259
« on: June 07, 2014, 05:20 »
1. Rather than subscribe to conspiracy theories, isn't it more plausible that some submissions are borderline in terms of what they are looking for?
2. Funny that folks have a sense of entitlement to have work accepted in certain sites but are happy to accept they are not "good enough" for the "in danger of being lost in their own alimentary canal" sites.
260
« on: June 04, 2014, 14:53 »
In other words, the only difference between basic content and the rest is price?
261
« on: June 04, 2014, 13:48 »
IMO it makes them very susceptible to being undercut on prices. In a price war they would basically have to potentially cut the price of all of their content - rather than, for example, only cutting the price of their basic content...
I'd be interested in the definition of "basic content"? Are we talking aesthetics or marketability because, with a few exceptions, these are pretty much mutually exclusive.
262
« on: June 03, 2014, 17:12 »
......SS have also been very slow to diversify. Almost their whole business seems to be microstock - i.e. no collections at different prices (apart from Offset which looks more or less like a hobby for them). IMO that makes them susceptible to competitive price cutting - and especially susceptible to competition from free and almost free content. I wonder how long they could sustain a price war......
Strange, would have though this was their strength, not a weakness at all - do what you're good at with maximum transparency, no farting around with collections or guess how much a credit is worth.
263
« on: June 02, 2014, 04:17 »
On a RPI basis IS seems to be in the same ballpark as SS for me (down from a point where it was paying out 3 times a year on 36 images). I think the question you need to ask is what % of your IS income comes from PP? The IS bit will increase but dunno about that bit. Would the extra IS commissions, keeping in mind the possible impact of subs, compensate for the combined income from SS, DT, FT, 123 + whatever else you might be interested in?
264
« on: June 01, 2014, 15:49 »
Isn't 2012 around the time they cut commissions / prices - can't remember but that might be a factor for the OP. Otherwise, with 24K images, the relative increase in port size would be small compared to most where dropping sales would be masked a bit by having more product on sale.
265
« on: June 01, 2014, 05:11 »
About 70% of April but see the same across all the sites
266
« on: May 31, 2014, 17:49 »
(I like this definition ("relatively honest") very much. We are now at the point of time when all the microstocks go to 3 groups: "relatively honest", "dishonest" and "too small to be considered as a serious agency". And there is no "honest" group at all. So, let's be more respectful to DT.)
Excellent summary. DT, in general, suffers from a lack of transparency but is (relatively) fair compared to the others that are actually worth a * (other than SS who appear to make very few mistakes, business or PR). This initiative seems harmless enough with the limited files etc, will certainly have no impact on me personally because its limited and doesnt include my best selling files so prepared to let it run & see how it goes. Equally, folks who will be or think they will be compromised or who have a principled position can opt out. IS unilaterally hugely reduced prices not long ago with no opt out and no corresponding sales increase. No long before, FT and 123 did something similar. Even the conscientious objectors have to admit this exercise DT are running is not in the same league.
267
« on: May 31, 2014, 12:00 »
please respect the views of full time photographers that depend on selling their images to live and support their families.
Two things:
1. Nobody in microstock can seriously make this argument with a straight face.
2. If your markets are genuinely sustainable and economically viable then they will not depend upon you persuading people to do this or that.
There are more and more microstock pictures every day. The more of something there is, the less you can realistically expect to get paid. Microstock is the basic (no added value) stock product and is clearly moving ever closer towards being free at the point of delivery IMO.
This is well said - just because the reality is not very palatable doesn't make it less real ...
268
« on: May 30, 2014, 15:58 »
Why would any agency punish your sales for the images they accepted?
Dreamstime reportedly does just that. And I agree that it's a bizarre approach (especially when they used to hand out rejections for including a model release - for things like partial profiles, body parts - which then count against you)
Bizarre. So they push you back in the search when you rejections are too high? What is the threshold?
Pffff, I just opened my account there, might as well close it again
Actually, it's pretty logical - in theory higher acceptance ratio = higher quality so show the best stuff first - in practice probably not 
269
« on: May 29, 2014, 16:49 »
In 2005, Dreamstime was the first site where I made enough for a payout. I remember wondering if this microstock thing was for real and if I could trust them and whether they would really send me real money. They did, and they have never given me personally any reason to distrust them in the nine years I have done business with them.
Some of the posts here seem a little over the top. Do people here really believe Serban is a "crook"? I have always admired his success and the way he runs his business. I hope this beta test works and I make some money from the ensuing deal. In the meantime, I don't mind if 154 of my images (out of 2229) are used in a limited trial and I don't get paid if the deal fails to materialize. My images aren't gold or diamonds or the cure for cancer. They are just clipart. If you hate DT, leave. If you don't want to participate in the beta test, then don't. It was just an invitation. Not the end of the world.
Agree not the smash & grab weve seen elsewhere, a very small number of images notified in advance with the option of opting out. Maybe not a good idea but no sense of anyone pulling a fast one here.
270
« on: May 29, 2014, 16:25 »
I thought they only checked for copyright / IP these days and will accept any old crap otherwise - unless the initial test (and only the initial test) still requires a certain standard?
271
« on: May 29, 2014, 16:15 »
I think its a combination of things, I was a gnat in their fur annoying them and they squashed me.
I have been in Matts hair for a while, he probably had enough of me
I have contacted these guys http://wallsheaven.de asking them where they got my images from
I have been actively fighting DPC by sending letters to the EU and other parties
I have been tweeting about boycotting Fotolia
I would ban myself too.
Probably more that list than anything said here - pretty upfront & being anonymous here would not have helped. Bad action from FT but not surprising.
272
« on: May 28, 2014, 16:53 »
DT gives me a hard time becoming excl on IS, since I cannot delete my port entirely...
Jaysus!!
273
« on: May 28, 2014, 16:28 »
The 12 in the email are mostly low performers that have been online forever although 3 of them do ok across the 5 sites in general - does look like linked to the new "keep them even if not sold" change.
274
« on: May 27, 2014, 15:33 »
Could it be Getty360?
had a late pp and a getty today
275
« on: May 25, 2014, 17:23 »
Do not play games or make assumptions. Contact support.
No games, no assumptions - if the OP resigned exclusivity in the prescribed manner he/she is entitled to do whatever suits with the work in question.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 58
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
