|
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 - cybernesco
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 21
251
« on: November 04, 2011, 13:58 »
"Disregard of competitors?" OMG, this is new.
disregard meaning "not paying attention".....IS have to know and understand what their competitors are doing else they will lose their buyers to them....
Then, the answer for istock is cutting their prices by half. But should that happen, many competitors would cut theirs too. Next station: free.
IS have to know and understand what their competitors are doing and try to do better, certainly not by putting prices higher within various complicated collections, else they will lose buyers to them....it is that simple
It's a matter of choosing. Maybe they prefer less downloads and more income. Every time I get a Vetta or Agency sale for 12 to 80 dollars, and that happens daily, I can't avoid thinking how many sub sales I would need to match that.
I am happy for you that you are doing well!!!
252
« on: November 04, 2011, 13:48 »
"Disregard of competitors?" OMG, this is new.
disregard meaning "not paying attention".....IS have to know and understand what their competitors are doing else they will lose their buyers to them....
Then, the answer for istock is cutting their prices by half. But should that happen, many competitors would cut theirs too. Next station: free.
IS have to know and understand what their competitors are doing and try to do better, certainly not by putting prices higher within various complicated collections, else they will lose buyers to them....it is that simple
253
« on: November 04, 2011, 13:31 »
"Disregard of competitors?" OMG, this is new.
disregard meaning "not paying attention".....IS have to know and understand what their competitors are doing else they will lose their buyers to them....
254
« on: November 04, 2011, 13:29 »
We shop for images at sites that make it easy to find the product we need in the least amount of time. The money we make is very time dependent so wading through the mess at IS is counter productive and time consuming. We need what we need and NOT the images that will make them the most money.
What mess? You've actually got the most filtering ability I've seen anywhere. Price, copyspace, color, orientation, etc. etc.
They need it to filter out their mess. Who wants to learn a filtering engine? Who wants to learn about the reasoning behind so many collections at various price points? The buyers have been left out.....
255
« on: November 04, 2011, 12:59 »
We shop for images at sites that make it easy to find the product we need in the least amount of time. The money we make is very time dependent so wading through the mess at IS is counter productive and time consuming. We need what we need and NOT the images that will make them the most money.
Most of our clients have room in their advertising budgets for a few less or more dollars. Search time is a deal killer, we decided to stop purchasing images at IS because of the business time squandered finding the images we needed for our projects as well as its abysmal lack of ethics and absence of concern for its customers and suppliers.
Totally Well Said.... Furthermore.... Infamous words from KKthompson on September 10, 2010: But money isnt going to be what makes you all happy. You want to know that this is still the best place to be, to hang out, and sell your work. You may not be convinced today like you were last week, but its our job to make sure you feel that way again soon. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&page=1From that point on I understood that this was the beginning of the end for iStock. You simply cannot treat your contributors that way. They totally, arrogantly, and unethically have been disregarding their contributors, buyers and competitors.
256
« on: November 01, 2011, 20:17 »
Interestingly, so far, from the iStock October sales thread, the majority of Bronze members have reported BME or very good October sales while the majority of diamond and above members have reported WME since 2006/07/08 or very bad month.
In other words, the majority of bronze members are making more then what I made today as a gold member.
Maybe this could explain why the earning rating poll on the right is still up for IS...as the lower canister level are making it up for the higher ones losing.
It's always easy to get a BME as a bronze, when you get 5 dls this month instead of 4 last.
Of course, but matching the results of a +1,000 files portfolio with a no-better 100 files portfolio is another matter.
This is exacly my point
257
« on: November 01, 2011, 19:24 »
Interestingly, so far, from the iStock October sales thread, the majority of Bronze members have reported BME or very good October sales while the majority of diamond and above members have reported WME since 2006/07/08 or very bad month.
In other words, the majority of bronze members are making more then what I made today as a gold member.
Maybe this could explain why the earning rating poll on the right is still up for IS...as the lower canister level are making it up for the higher ones losing.
258
« on: November 01, 2011, 18:38 »
So far today with SS
So far today with IS
$1.61
Hmmm. Interesting.
So is the 25-a-day subscriptions?
And the enhanced is just regular purchases? Or is that extended licenses?
Is that kind of sales volume happening every day or is today just a good day?
This is 3 Enhanced X $28.00 + 9 subs X .38 I usually do get 2-3 enhanced per month. Rarely 2 on the same day. 3 on the same day happened twice before. Overal, lately, SS and other sites are slowly filling the missing IS revenue.
259
« on: November 01, 2011, 18:10 »
So far today with SS So far today with IS $1.61
260
« on: November 01, 2011, 12:21 »
I used to submit to SS and all the others. Looks like you're having a great day!
This is good...you have an amazing port!! I believe that a selected few, like yourself, probably have their ports bookmarked by some or many agencies so that regardless of what is going on, they will want to go back to your images...hence why your sales are keeping up.....which is ok for now. It remained to be seen if this is sustainable through this ongoing iStock development.
261
« on: November 01, 2011, 11:43 »
I don't mean to dismiss anyone's experience, it is what it is. And I'm not saying that there aren't other factors that effect our sales (like any business), but the biggest factor imo is what we're doing. It does seem appropriate to be honest here, otherwise these conversations turn into huge venting threads with no value to anyone. Jonathan R said on the last page that he hasn't uploaded in 3 years, so of course his sales are way down. All I'm saying is the same thing, if you upload just 40 photos a year, of course your sales will be down. They may level for a little while, but eventually it'll catch up with you, no matter what else is going on at iStock.
It could very well be an uploading thing for some contributors, but that still doesn't really answer the question of why iStock is dropping so fast. I haven't uploaded to many of the major agencies in a year and they are holding pretty steady in income. iStock seems to be the exception to that, so there is definitely something unique going on there. Maybe, it was dumping all that agency collection stuff in the catalog. Maybe, it's a bad reputation. I don't know, but it doesn't seem to be a simple fix. Unless, you count just dumping them. 
I do think the average buyer at iStock is becoming more of a higher-priced (midstock) buyer (compared to sub sites buyers especially). So having TAC or Vetta files is more important than it used to be. In my experience, one TAC sale is the equivalent to about 100 SS sales.
What do you know about SS? This is today so far at SS....  This is my entire month of October at IS....  Both sites have the same collection of images...
262
« on: November 01, 2011, 09:18 »
It looks like you're not submitting much to iStock. I think that explains it more than anything, especially with the increase in really good competition. imho.
You really believe that? Honestly? That the lack of sales is down simply to that?
Our competition is uploading 200-600 high quality images a month. 3 a month just won't compete these days, no matter how good they are.
At the moment, 3 a month is sufficient for me elsewhere....my total revenue is the same as 2010. Buyers are going elsewhere....
263
« on: November 01, 2011, 09:03 »
This is the first time I haven't reach a monthly payout with iStock since July 2006. My October sales have dropped 68% from my September sales. The last time my iStock monthly sales were that low was February 2006. In 2009 iStock was my number one in sale revenue. In 2010 it felt to number 2. Last September it felt to number 3. Now it is number 6. All other sites above IS, which are Shutterstock, Fotolia, Dreamstime, Bigstock, Canstock have all reached their regular monthly payouts and they all have given me better revenue then iStock. Furthermore, sales at those better sites appear to have increased to compensate for the lost at IS.
You haven't reach minimum payout on IS ($100) or your usual payout this month?
P.S. I think that Yuri's photos are not so bright any more, like before... 
with 20k sales cannot be true or something is pretty wrong..
It is true.....
It looks like you're not submitting much to iStock. I think that explains it more than anything, especially with the increase in really good competition. imho.
Considering heavyweight microstockers have reported declining sales despite their heavy uploading. The question should be....should I waste my time submitting more to iStock? These days, Microstock in general has definetly better vital signs then one of its subpart... iStock, hence why this thread is still going... don't you agree?
264
« on: October 31, 2011, 20:09 »
This is the first time I haven't reach a monthly payout with iStock since July 2006. My October sales have dropped 68% from my September sales. The last time my iStock monthly sales were that low was February 2006. In 2009 iStock was my number one in sale revenue. In 2010 it felt to number 2. Last September it felt to number 3. Now it is number 6. All other sites above IS, which are Shutterstock, Fotolia, Dreamstime, Bigstock, Canstock have all reached their regular monthly payouts and they all have given me better revenue then iStock. Furthermore, sales at those better sites appear to have increased to compensate for the lost at IS.
You haven't reach minimum payout on IS ($100) or your usual payout this month?
P.S. I think that Yuri's photos are not so bright any more, like before...
with 20k sales cannot be true or something is pretty wrong..
It is true.....
265
« on: October 30, 2011, 14:18 »
This is the first time I haven't reach a monthly payout with iStock since July 2006. My October sales have dropped 68% from my September sales. The last time my iStock monthly sales were that low was February 2006. In 2009 iStock was my number one in sale revenue. In 2010 it felt to number 2. Last September it felt to number 3. Now it is number 6. All other sites above IS, which are Shutterstock, Fotolia, Dreamstime, Bigstock, Canstock have all reached their regular monthly payouts and they all have given me better revenue then iStock. Furthermore, sales at those better sites appear to have increased to compensate for the lost at IS.
266
« on: October 16, 2011, 11:53 »
That would be the price if they downloaded their maximum allocation. We do know that isn't the way subscriptions work. The sites like them because buyers download much less each month. So they aren't used to paying $0.30 per image, they're used to paying much more. In theory, they could pay as little as $0.26 but they could also download 1 image and pay 199.
Maybe, but that's the perceived price, what they think a license is worth.
This is my perspective on this. At SS, In US dollars, to download one on-demand image is $19.00. To download 25 on-demand images within one year, it is $229.00. Subscription's is $249.00 for a maximum of 750 images and cannot download more then 25 images a day. 249/750 = .332 Because I have reach $10,000 in revenue over 2 years ago, (which I suspect maybe hundreds or thousands have reached that level as well) I get $0.38 per download. Obviously if buyers would max out their downloads quota all the time, as you can see, SS would end up with a negative revenue of -$0.048 per download. We all know that subscriptions must be profitable for SS for it to exist, and I am sure they are not getting just 5%. Even if they would get just 30%, the price per download for my images would cost the buyers $0.51 per download if they manage to download 488 images within a month. But I suspect that it is much more then 30% because then they would be more money to be made with other kind of packages. I suspect that SS is making well over 50% which would bring the price per download to $0.60 for the buyers if they manage to download 415 images. I agree that it is still not much and that we deserve more but it is not as low as $0.26 per download for the buyers. Obviously there is more profit for SS for the files being paid less then $0.38 but it is still costing the same for the buyers. Sor far, over the years, SS has been improving their revenue stream through new packages and deals to benefit all involves, contributors, buyers and of course, themselves. I think they have the key to success for years to come.
267
« on: October 11, 2011, 12:13 »
Forget about best match and customers fleeing because they feel contributors are not well treated. best match results are not bad at all, unless you think that the only good best match is the one that puts all your images in the first places. Search engine is great, and vastly better than any other site if you use any language that is not English. Customers give a dam m about contributors or suppliers, like in any other business. If IS is losing speed is because of the prices.
Istock made a mistake when they created the concept of microstock. Too much micro. Too much cheap. It wasn't necessary, because any intermediate prices would had been seen as an steal as well, compared with Getty, Corbis etc. SS made another mistake when creating subscriptions; even cheaper, hiper-devaluated value of our work. That, of course, spoiled the customers. With time, IS corrected the mistake, now prices are reasonable. SS never did it (except for a reduction from 30 to 25 downloads/day, I think), other agencies followed this path; so IS nowadays prices seem not-reasonable to many customers. Should IS lower its prices now all the other agencies would lower theirs the next minute.
A few years ago, cheap high speed internet and cheap massively produced high quality digital images were on a collision course. "Microstock" is a byproduct of that collision, helped by our "free democratized capitalism" society. If Getty did not see it coming, it is their mistake not IS. If not IS, another entity would have quickly figured it out. Because Getty did not figure out "microstock", they bough IS and because they don't understand "microstock" they have been trying to turn IS, a then already successful microstock based agency, into their own "getty dinosaur" agenda ever since, while disregarding contributors, buyers and what microstock is all about. Well good luck with that....
268
« on: October 11, 2011, 07:30 »
Haven't written a line here for sometimes....amazingly, although I haven't uploaded that much to any site this year, my total sale have been the same as 2010. However, I must say that there has been a big shift of buyers no longer buying my images at IS but buying them elsewhere. In 2009, IS was my number one, in 2010 it felt to number two. Last September it felt to 4th place, and now so far this October 6th place.
So far this October SS is first, FT second, DT third, CS fourth, Ala fifth and IS sixth. I am getting some increased sales at SS not so much at FT but definitely more at DT, CS, BS, Veer and 123rf.
I think one of the main problem with IS is that they don't stick to a working formula. I do believe in changes but only when the market calls for it or when there is a genuine reason to believe that the market would want it. IS has too many various collections at various price points overlapping each others which therefore confuse the buyers. These days you want simple, quick and no hassles...that is why I think SS is a winner on that front. They kept one formula since they started while adding some very subtle changes without confusing anybody. SS works...no fixing needed....only subtle, small changes once in while. Furthermore, SS best match works great....I say let buyers decide and favor who ever they want not the agency. IS has a way of changing there best match to favor a particular group over what buyers really wants. To me this is a big no no, hence why buyers are moving elsewhere.
269
« on: March 24, 2011, 13:06 »
Works perfect, it let me select the input/output settings while Google call doesn't. I have been told the sound make a bit of static, which must be normal since the sound must pass through multiple servers etc. Work just fine!!
Good to know. Thanks
270
« on: March 24, 2011, 11:39 »
Totally Free local and long distance calls. This is no gimmick, nothing hidden, no contract and absolutly not intrusive. Unlike Skype, the telephone feature on KNCTR is completely free to the consumer allowing them to make FREE local and long distance calls to mobile phones and land lines from their PC based computers. go to http://www.knctr.comI tried this last night and it is flawless. I think everybody should try this, however I think for the moment it only works in US and Canada.
271
« on: January 23, 2011, 13:17 »
I just created a private group called "Top Tier Non-Exclusive Microstockers". Basically, to participate your total downloads from iStock, Fotolia and/or Dreamstime must be over 30,000. This could be a combination of all or any of the three. For approval you must give home links of to those sites to show your credential. As well you must be a non-exclusive.
Thanks Tyler, this is an awesome initiative. Denis
Regarding the above, in trying to attract the participation of other worthwhile and equally productive microstockers, I added a few more conditions which I hope will help members to join in. Here are those conditions: To participate you must satisfy one of the four conditions below: 1- Your total downloads from iStock, Fotolia and/or Dreamstime must be over 30,000. This could be a combination of all or any of the three, or 2- Your total downloads from iStock, Fotolia and/or Dreamstime must be over 20,000. This could be a combination of all or any of the three. And you must have a 1200+ images Shutterstock account with a commission subscription rate of $0.38, or 3- Your total downloads from iStock, Fotolia and/or Dreamstime must be over 10,000. This could be a combination of all or any of the three. And you must have a 4000+ images Shutterstock account with a commission subscription rate of $0.38, or 4- You are presently an iStock Diamond and became a non-exclusive after Sep 1st, 2010. And you must have your images published with at least one other popular microstock agency. For approval you must give home links of those sites discussed above to show your credential. As well you must be a non-exclusive. Below is the link to join in: http://www.microstock.me/groups/top-tier-non-exclusive-microstockers/
272
« on: January 23, 2011, 07:07 »
Yeah, i understand what you are saying. perhaps it is just best to keep the groups how they are. I wanted to create a group for people who are Dependant on their microstock income for their livelihood which is why i chose the 50% amount. Even if it is a different amount for different people, it would still 'mean' the same thing to each of them
Of course, and those people dependant on microstock would definetly have a higher priority, be more active and passionate in discussions . Thanks Tyler, you are a true gentleman.
273
« on: January 22, 2011, 20:43 »
I just created a private group called "Top Tier Non-Exclusive Microstockers". Basically, to participate your total downloads from iStock, Fotolia and/or Dreamstime must be over 30,000. This could be a combination of all or any of the three. For approval you must give home links of to those sites to show your credential. As well you must be a non-exclusive.
Thanks Tyler, this is an awesome initiative. Denis
I'm happy you like the site.
I'm glad you took the initiative to create a group - we now have three sort of similar groups though. Full time microstock photographers (which I started), where I said you had to have over 1000 images and earn over 50% of your income from microstock, RT's group (Diamond group) which you have to have diamond on istock or gold on fotolia, and then your group with total downloads over 30,000. I think we may be spreading ourselves a little thin with three groups? I would imagine many of the same people would be in all the groups... perhaps I should make you an admin of the group I started already and we can drive that one together?
The conditions should include other aspects too. I think Denis' is the most appropiate. For example, I am in top tier at SS - 0.38 (which means at least about 30k sales by itself if I'm not mistaking), but I am bronze at istock with only 300 files, because their upload system was too much for my patience. However, I am full time on photography (mostly stock).
Yeah it is really tricky to know where to draw a line or how to draw it.
I have let iStock slide a lot as well while Dreamstime and Shutterstock sales look a lot better. The group I already started could change it's 'rules' a bit - my main point was that perhaps the groups were similar enough that they could be combined.
.. or on second thought, if our 'requirements' are different enough, then perhaps is is OK to have a few different groups?!
Tyler, True those three groups would be overlapping each others; however I found that each one of the other two groups to be a little restrictive in ways that really should not be on some other equally productive microstockers. Regarding your created group the full time microstock photographers, I found that having to earn over 50% of your income from microstock will give you too much of a wide spectrum of microstockers as the cost of living varies from one part of the world to the other. What about the guy that makes 75K dollars a year at something else, should we expect him making 75K in microstock as well? What about another one that makes 15K at something else, then the requirement for this particular person would only be 15K? But then again, perhaps that is the requirements that you want which is fine too. And then the Diamond group, again we are missing other equally productive microstockers. As you say it is really tricky to draw a line or how to draw it. In my case I would not be able to apply in either one of those two groups, however I do believe to be at least as equally productive. This is why I created this group as I think you would get very productive discussions with microstockers from the top tier. Xalanx mentioned SS 0.38 per download which would indicate in fact over 30K downloads. That is another variable that could be used to identify someone, if only those 0.38 cents could be publicly seen. By totalling downloads from microstock sites that we know, we can easily draw a line that would be equally fair for everybody regardless of where you are from. Denis
274
« on: January 22, 2011, 09:27 »
I just created a private group called "Top Tier Non-Exclusive Microstockers". Basically, to participate your total downloads from iStock, Fotolia and/or Dreamstime must be over 30,000. This could be a combination of all or any of the three. For approval you must give home links of to those sites to show your credential. As well you must be a non-exclusive.
Thanks Tyler, this is an awesome initiative. Denis
275
« on: November 04, 2010, 16:40 »
Am I right in thinking that he won by submitting something that isn't actually a photo?
Amongst many photoshop processes, looks like stacked layers of various images with various opacity setting.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 21
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
