|
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 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 44
276
« on: February 13, 2013, 11:17 »
If you guys are really all so good why don't leave microstock and join Getty RF/RM or Corbis in droves ?
If your are so good... why don't join micro agencies? Provided you can pass the initial admission quality test, of course...
277
« on: February 11, 2013, 10:33 »
I think it's fair to say that istock has taken a lot of adverse, sometimes even insulting or near insulting comments oh their forums (I mean the ones that stand, not the ones deleted). Take the RC system threads, or the google deal threads as example. I don't think many business (including micro stock business) would allow that on their own boards. I'm not giving an opinion on if such comments are right or wrong, just stating a fact.
278
« on: February 10, 2013, 13:26 »
Almost wish Lobo was here to lock this thread.
Agree. It seems that some people needs maket his point on an on (and on) even when the theme is already cancelled.
279
« on: February 09, 2013, 14:13 »
If IS falls over this year, you are screwed.
I just have to laugh at comments like this. You have been in the business a few months, probably earn a few hundred dollars a year, but feel free to pontificate about just about everything to do with microstock, with very little real experience.
Laugh at me all you want. It has nothing to do with how much experience I have. I made over 3000 dollar profit since I started selling photos 10 months ago. I guess I am doing just fine next to my 56.000 dollar day job. I am a fast learner.
It has everything to do you with what you said yourself and common sense.
You say you cant leave IS because it will be a disaster. So IF IS falls over this year, you are screwed, or not? Either way, you lose your income. Thats why me and other people say its best to spread the risk. How tough that may be, you better get started before its too late. THis doesnt apply to micro stock, but to any situation in life. And I have plenty experience with that.
I didnt attack you dude, I just made an observation. No need to get personal imo.
What you fail to understand, given your lack of experiencie in the field, is that the risk, the risk of saturation, the risk of falling income, the risk of being betrayed by the site owners, is global. Micro sites are all in the same habitat. Diversifying, not having all egss on one basket means to spread your work at your income out af micro, and even out of RF or RM. That's what I did years ago, even if having a really healthy monthly income at istock.
I do not fail anything. I know you all love to bash the newbie, but at least make sure you got all facts before you to the bashing.
I dont need the income from photography, but I do like the extra money. I sell micro, macro, POD, direct and do freelance. Its all adding up. And if one fails, there is still the others.
Well, that's the correct way. If the main source of income fails, extra money don't pay the expenses if you only had this main source of income besides the extra money. Doing so many things besides microstosk and your day job must be titanic. Although is possible to do much more that the sum of all having the knowledge and one big and focused rf micro portfolio. Today, true. Tomorrow never knows.
280
« on: February 09, 2013, 12:07 »
If IS falls over this year, you are screwed.
I just have to laugh at comments like this. You have been in the business a few months, probably earn a few hundred dollars a year, but feel free to pontificate about just about everything to do with microstock, with very little real experience.
Laugh at me all you want. It has nothing to do with how much experience I have. I made over 3000 dollar profit since I started selling photos 10 months ago. I guess I am doing just fine next to my 56.000 dollar day job. I am a fast learner.
It has everything to do you with what you said yourself and common sense.
You say you cant leave IS because it will be a disaster. So IF IS falls over this year, you are screwed, or not? Either way, you lose your income. Thats why me and other people say its best to spread the risk. How tough that may be, you better get started before its too late. THis doesnt apply to micro stock, but to any situation in life. And I have plenty experience with that.
I didnt attack you dude, I just made an observation. No need to get personal imo.
What you fail to understand, given your lack of experiencie in the field, is that the risk, the risk of saturation, the risk of falling income, the risk of being betrayed by the site owners, is global. Micro sites are all in the same habitat. Diversifying, not having all egss on one basket means to spread your work at your income out af micro, and even out of RF or RM. That's what I did years ago, even if having a really healthy monthly income at istock.
281
« on: February 07, 2013, 09:48 »
bitter has no longer a folder at istockphoto. I knew he had left exclusivity, but I ignore when he deleted his is portfolio.
282
« on: February 07, 2013, 09:24 »
I haven't been one of Bruce's fan boys in the past, he sold to Getty when Getty had a very long standing reputation for treating their contributors like dirt, but I am prepared to give this project a chance. It stands a good chance of success because a lot of people do have faith in him, and hopefully the coop model will prohibit another sell out.
Maybe he realizes what Getty did to his baby, and is making amends. In any case, I would give him a second chance.
I hope you're right. With all that's gone on, I'm still skeptical that he truly has photophers' best interests at heart and not just his wallet's. The funny thing is, he probably could've ended up making way more had he brought iStockphoto public instead of selling out to Getty. I have little respect for him.
What we know: Co-opt. 50% 100% on ELs An history of efficiency and care for the photographers. Maybe you respect more who pays around 20% and can change the rules at will.
283
« on: February 07, 2013, 05:01 »
Great. That will be interesting.
284
« on: January 10, 2013, 07:07 »
Of course if it, that's not opinion, that's a fact.
285
« on: January 09, 2013, 18:51 »
You should try watermelons too.
They're on my shopping list. Thanks for the great idea. I'm going to spend $2K on them for a really big 'professional' shoot.
I bet you can do it. It's in the range of your capacities. And then, you'll be able to boast again about how many bags full with thousands and thousands of dollars you carry to your bank.
286
« on: January 09, 2013, 15:26 »
You should try watermelons too.
287
« on: January 09, 2013, 14:32 »
Yes, they overdone the prices, they went too far. They went to midstock. The question is could midstock sell well?
The answer is yes. There's a still a very big gap among istock and getty or corbis RF prices. There's a difference between 20 or even 150 and 500, to say something. But, when I've said yes, now I must say "no", because there's another thing factoring in: competitor's prices.
Maybe istock thougth other sites would follow (from a distance) their price rises. Should the two or three big ones done so, there wouldn't be much difference in downloads.The only difference would be that everybody (exclusives, by selling more at istock, and indies by selling for more at their sites) would be making more money.
But, since other sites began to flourish on the shadow of istock's microstock original concept, competitor's selling argument number one has always been: "Hey, we are cheaper!", and now is clear that this won't change. Even worse, istock has its own "We are cheaper!" sites, TS and Photos.com. There are a lot of sites that lack the confidence in their product to raise prices, even a little bit, even leaving them a at distance from istock. One or two dit it very shyly years ago, but then stopped, even eventually rolled back. Istock has been always the only and one agency pushing this cart.
So, I never would say, as something has said here, that istock prices are ridiculous. Maybe they can be for people who shot pizzas and watermelons, but when you spent 1.000 or 2.000 dollars in models, locations, props etc for a session, istock prices come to me to respect my professionality and my work. But, yes, in context, they are not realistic; that's something that isock excutives already know.
288
« on: January 09, 2013, 11:13 »
Keep in mind that this is not just an istock exclusives problem, there are also images of other sites, at least Fotolia. I dind't spent much time in the MS page, but, for example, I found a lot of Lisa's images, coming from Fotolia.
289
« on: January 04, 2013, 06:59 »
In ten years, I havent't had any accident with memory cards. And I don't use to buy expensive cards.
290
« on: December 24, 2012, 11:50 »
theprint is his iStock user name, in case you can't match real world name with member name. He is apparently not in any hurry to get his portfolio up on other sites.
MichaelJay, formerly of the former Berlin office, has also dropped his crown. To be precise, both of them have started their 30 day clock although the crown isn't yet gonzo.
This says it all, really. I suspect these guys would never have given up their crowns if they had any hope that Istock would return to its former self.
I came across this post recently from Abzee, on the RC announcement thread, back in Sept 2010. It turns out to have been amazingly prophetic;
"Just a note to Kelly JJRD Rogermexico and Lobo, as they have been in this thread so far.
After you have successfully executed the Getty Masterplan you too will likely feel what it's like to be shafted, I only hope you'll think it was worth it."
Only Lobo still there.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=251812&page=23
You are assuming they all were shafted. That, probably, is not exact. I can't say more.
291
« on: December 23, 2012, 18:43 »
...The other thing - how reliable are the payment systems of other agencies? With istock I have always been paid on time, no problem. I still dont have experience with payouts at other sites.
I have no problems with any of the 20 agencies I get payments from. In fact, most are easier to deal with than istock. SS only allows one payout per month, but they do it automatically and like clockwork every month. No action required on my part. The ones that allow payouts any time generally pay out within a few days of the request. Some even same-day or within 24 hours many times.
Never missed a payment, lost a payment, or had any reason to contact any agency about a payment. And the only company that I ever wonder about whether or not I'm getting paid the proper amount at is istock.
There have been payment problems at other sites, but never more than a temporary hiccup - as has been the case several times at iStock.
Some sites (I think FT is still like this) don't have a set schedule and don't seem to be able to deliver a set number of days after a request, so that makes for a lot of "where's my payment" questions. They always end up paying in the end though.
In almost a decade, I've never had a serious problem getting paid at IS. At most, maybe two o three times (over hundreds), one or two days delays for some technical problem related to istock or paypal.
292
« on: December 21, 2012, 18:19 »
This is a stupid, naive, banal, unintelligent thread. Havent ppl here got more important things to do then starting one bollocks thread after another.
Go and do some work instead, you can always supply the freebie agencies.
name me a few of those 
123rf has over 42,000 free images
DT has thousands of free images (they changed their search now so I can't see how many, I think it was much more than 123rf though)
FT don't they ask to put your photos into a free section if they are rejected
Very true. ... and 0,30 (more or less) one "sub" is the norm almost everywhere. Getting downloads it's not exactly the same that getting money. If it is just an reassuring ego question, ok. I left behind this phase long ago. Subs are just next thing to freebies. If something good has done Istock is daring to put up prices, to value our work (and yes, I know of other many not-so-good things as TS, comission cuts etc). In the end, maybe the diference in royalties (15-45% at Isock, about 26% at other sites) has a lesser impact in earnings than difference in price. In any case, should Istock finally feel the heat, they would lower prices, and next day many other sites would decrease even more their prices to be able to compete. What about 0,10 the sub?
293
« on: December 21, 2012, 12:44 »
The sub model has been even more harmful to the industry than RF, though it was probably an inevitable consequence of RF/digital cameras.
+1 [/quote] Wise words.
294
« on: December 19, 2012, 16:49 »
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349961&page=1
If you moved up during 2012 by hitting new levels/targets you will stay at your new rate going into 2013
If you have not made it back to your 2012 level you will not move down on Jan 1, instead you will stay at your current level/rate going into 2013
RC counts will still reset as of Jan 1, the 2013 RC targets will remain as they are, and if you reach a new level target during 2013 you will automatically move up
I don't fully understand the part bolded. If you moved up during this year you should stay at your new level anyway for next year, don't you?
295
« on: December 19, 2012, 08:50 »
Very sad. It was a master as a photographer and a respected voice here. My condolences to his family and friends.
296
« on: December 17, 2012, 13:57 »
Congrats.
If we put images on sale for 28 cents... we shouldn't regret these images being bougth for this price.
btw... "Looper", I like the title!
297
« on: December 12, 2012, 13:04 »
Better sales here, not still the way they were but good enough.
298
« on: December 11, 2012, 09:51 »
I'm once again called a TROLL in this forum by the crowd of do-gooders shocked to realize iStock and the whole microstock industry entered a downward spiral that will soon leave you guys grilling burgers at McDonalds.
It's 3 or 4 yrs i'm pointing out that this would have been the obvious conclusion and that the only way out was to stick to RM but you guys were always so positive and full of hope like children with rosy glasses, sure to have found the new gold mine and that it would have last forever.
Now you're all pants down crying out about falling sales and all you can tell me is i'm a known troll and agent provocateur, banning me and telling me to F off.
Hahaha, you're just all patethic and you deserve to be scammed by Getty and their other cronies.
You reap what you sow and i'm the one having the last laugh.
Farewell.
Well... the utter demise you a foreseing to happen in three-four years it was already prophetized in the forums.... three o four years ago. Maybe it was you, with a different nick?
299
« on: December 10, 2012, 18:10 »
Metastocker,
could you please keep your hatred of women to yourself? You are really just making a fool of yourself, as if youre uncontrolled hormones are in complete overdrive.
Gender has got nothing to do with the quality of a manager. Neither does their religion, their skin color, their age or their body height. Or any other sizes.
Leadership comes from proving yourself and getting results.
Hatred and uncontrolled emotion can never bring results.
Agree on all counts
300
« on: December 07, 2012, 17:45 »
Search is fast, contributor side stuff like My Uploads, stats etc all still very slow.
Better that way than vice versa.
Yes, same here. Search uses to be fast, entering in the istock page is light-fast.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 44
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
