|
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 - macrosaur
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13
276
« on: February 18, 2010, 14:46 »
Wasted time.
If you're serious about direct selling of photos and prints go with Photosholter.
277
« on: February 18, 2010, 14:44 »
Why wasting time with third rate agencies ?
They're not even agencies in fact, DepositPhotos is an offshoot of a well known
warez site.
278
« on: February 18, 2010, 14:41 »
"Does MicroStock lower design standards ? "
YES.
Definitely.
Because in one way or another it reinforces designers and buyers into thinking images are worth few cents
and after some time they'll think it's true and they'll pretend discounts.
279
« on: February 18, 2010, 14:37 »
They also banned me in the Alamy forum, such a pain in the ass.
Can i stay here ?
I promise i'm a good boy now but you know it already.
280
« on: February 18, 2010, 14:36 »
I got banned but today i tried logging in and it works ...
281
« on: February 18, 2010, 11:41 »
Hello i'm back.
282
« on: February 10, 2010, 14:24 »
What's the over under on when he disappears again?  Well Perseus/Batman disappeared. It must be something like the seven-year itch.
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!
Poor guy just cannot manage to keep that much crazy contained for very long.
Well spotted FD, and Race. 
Yes. Macrosaur == Old Hippy But now i'm a good boy.
283
« on: February 09, 2010, 22:24 »
I agree with Jonathan.
If Getty doesn't like you maybe you're just unworth it.
284
« on: February 09, 2010, 19:54 »
PDN.
Everybody talk about PDN.
But where's the money ?
285
« on: February 09, 2010, 19:36 »
Macrosaur, you seem to have completely missed the point of my post and a number of others.
I don't in any way blame Getty or Corbis for rejecting my images. Particularly five years ago when I was a fledgling newbie to the idea of stock.
However, by dismissing so many photographers out of hand, they laid the foundation for the massive success that microstock has turned out to be. Ultimately that mistake has cost them an enormous part of their formerly lucrative businesses, and has left them playing catch up.
I am truly sorry that the end result has been the devaluing of imagery. Had I been offered the choice I would certainly have preferred to sell through macro prices at macro agencies.
But I didn't have that chance, and for you and Jonathan to be urging us to change course at this late date really is trying to close the barn door after the horse is gone.
I don't blame microstockers for "doing all they can", i just blame them for "selling their best pics at 0.25$". Hope you agree with me.
286
« on: February 09, 2010, 19:33 »
Woah !
So many replies.
Most of you guys just can NOT join Getty, do you realize it or not ?
Nowadays even monkeys can do "good enough" images, live with it.
And you complain about Getty, try joining serious agencies like Magnum, VII, Rex, Noor, Polaris, etc
287
« on: February 09, 2010, 14:12 »
Nobody said Getty was going to close or "bet the company" on iStock, but with this lastest microstock offering one can guess they're aiming to increase their exposure in the only stock photography market that's growing.
Companies have all one single goal : making profits. And it's the duty of every good CEO to push the company where the money is. Now the money is growing fast in microstock so for them it would be criminal to waste the opportunity of dominating the micro market leaving the $bucks to their competitors at SS, Fotolia, etc. I don't think their CEO gives a crap about microstock eroding their RM/RF collection, he's getting bonuses based on quarter results, and if tomorrow their RM collection is not selling anymore he will be already somewhere else with millions of $ in his pocket. Said that, i think they know their chickens and what to us may appear as a "harakiri" is simply a move to bankrupt their competitors. After all RM is bleeding money because the old buyers are bankrupt or surviving with small budgets, and there's nothing Getty or me and you can do about this.
288
« on: February 09, 2010, 14:05 »
Joining Getty is every photographer's dream.
They must be flooded with applications.
You think so, these days for $50 a pop they'll take pretty much anybody on PC. Now joining Magnum is what I'd consider as every photographers dream.
Yeah except the fact that Magnum photographers are actually making more money with their expensive workshops than what they make shooting feature stories in Kabul or Baghdad risking their ass. And the Photographer's Choice is a good deal as it gives you the opportunity to see if you can sell there or not. I heard of people making big sales there with just 50$ of investment. You can say what you want about Getty but they're the ones with the biggest paying buyers in the market. Alamy, Corbis, and the gang are simply no match with Getty. I've read recently about a guy in the Alamy forum selling a pic on Getty for 60.000$ (an advertising with eleephants), try to do that with Alamy or micros...
289
« on: February 09, 2010, 14:00 »
Dug this out of my email, dated 12/28/05...
"Thank you for your submission to Getty Images, and giving us the opportunity to review your imagery. However, after careful consideration, our submission review team has decided that your work does not match our needs at this time. You may like to consider getting in touch with PACA (The Picture Archive Council of America), at www.stockindustry.org, who will be able to direct you to other Stock Agencies who might be interested in reviewing your images."
It does make you wonder ... did the 'careful consideration' involve actually looking at the submissions at any point in the process? If they'd had any sense they'd have been welcoming all the best microstockers with open arms and neutralising their threat with 'golden handcuff' deals.
Funnily enough the date of that rejection coincided almost exactly with the point at which it all went so tragically wrong for Getty. Back then the share price was at an all-time high but just two years later had dropped over 70% and they were vulnerable to a buyout on the cheap.
I just hope that their arrogance and the ignorance of the market that they displayed then isn't rearing its ugly head again in the shape of Thinkstock.
I disagree. Getty is a brand known for top quality and top prices. They can't open the door to young wannabee unless their portfolios are at least on par with Getty's minimum standards. The alternative is Alamy where 90% of their collection is junk. And i can't see anything arrogant in that email. It's your duty as an applicant to provide them with material that in few seconds can convince them you're worth of joining Getty. These guys see 1000s of amazing images per day. They can spot in a flash if you're great, good, or mediocre : it's their work full time job and they know their job.
290
« on: February 09, 2010, 13:52 »
Dug this out of my email, dated 12/28/05...
"Thank you for your submission to Getty Images, and giving us the opportunity to review your imagery. However, after careful consideration, our submission review team has decided that your work does not match our needs at this time. You may like to consider getting in touch with PACA (The Picture Archive Council of America), at www.stockindustry.org, who will be able to direct you to other Stock Agencies who might be interested in reviewing your images."
It doesn't mean your images suck, it can simply mean they had a look and thought "yet another guy shooting business/lifestyle". You can't blame them, there's so much people shooting the same stuff as you and Yuri and what you see on Getty is usually pretty expensive stuff done by professionals investing lots of money on this, you can't easily compete with them or adding something new and special unless you're very talented and gifted. Joining Getty is every photographer's dream. They must be flooded with applications.
291
« on: February 09, 2010, 13:48 »
Excuse me guys but as macrosaur i've something to say ...
1 - If Getty or Corbis rejected your portfolios is for a simple reason : they felt your images are either not good enough for them or have simply nothing special to add to what they're already selling.
RM agencies want creative photos, not holiday snapshots or copies of famous images they've in store since the '80s.
The sad thing is also they've lots of crap as well but it's usually stuff shot years ago that today sound a bit dated.
2 - Why RM agencies should invest on you as long as your portfolio is nothing to write home about ?
I don't mean your images suck, your images can probably be much better than the ones they're selling now, the issue there is maybe they're not as original and as creative as they want.
Creativity cannot be judjed or classified, it's something you either have or not, and if you look at your pictures and can't see anything wrong than maybe the only place you can belong is iStock or mabe Alamy since they don't edit.
3 - Why you keep comparing apples and oranges ?
The RM market can NOT disappear for the simple reason they sell anything including copyrighted logos, news, editorial, historic images, whatever under the sun.
Microstock is just a niche of the whole stock market and a very small one because of the many limitations
about copyright and model/property releases etc
292
« on: February 09, 2010, 05:57 »
Also from Jonathan Klein, Getty Co-founder and CEO:
"Traditional creative stills (RM and RF) is becoming a smaller part of our business. Our customers use more imagery online, which means more volume, but at a lower price. Big-spend print campaigns are not dead, but there are certainly fewer."
"Getty Images did not grow overall revenues in 2009. We must be a growing business, and we must increase our revenue in 2010."
They've been in the news quite a lot lately - slashing budgets, freezing payroll, laying people off, ceasing in-house production ... the list goes on.
macrosaur still gets his news via the newspaper...he's a bit behind in the times...
He's just saying the truth : earning from micros are rising fast, while earning from RM are flat or decreasing a bit, no more no less. He's not saying they'll soon close Getty Images and bet the company on iStock. Besides, if they don't care anymore about RM, their buyers will just move elsewhere to Alamy, Corbis, AGE, Masterfile, and other smaller specialized agencies.
293
« on: February 08, 2010, 19:44 »
. On the flip side of the coin, I also have the opportunity to make imagery for Getty - but I have chosen not to do so. Why? Because that marketplace is in (sharp) decline, and I'd rather invest my time in a growing market.
What are those evolutionary buzzwords again - adapt or perish?
Looking at those little red arrows pointing downwards to the right of this post I'd have to say that perhaps the market is not growing all that well even in the world of micro. Adaption should involve some consideration for the host organism; it's just too easy to overpopulate and starve.
Who told you Getty's RM market is in sharp decline ? RM agencies are in deep crap since 2-3 years but putting this into perspective they were making a ton of money selling crap at premium price and now they're making decent money selling at cheaper prices but it's still a good payout for their photographers unless you pretend to have a pension just because you have a few dozen pics sitting on Getty ... Alamy'd doing fine considering many other agencies went down the drain last year. Lost maybe 30% of its RM biz but it's still alive and paying on time. Even wanting i don't think microstocker could make a quick switch to RM, it takes a very long time to get the foot in the door and start making sales there and big portfolios in most of the cases. One of Alamy's top sellers has next to 100.000 pics online for instance. I can't imagine the time he spent keywording it all ...
294
« on: February 08, 2010, 15:21 »
I don't get it.
If DELL buys something there's something fishy going on.
But after all even Bill Gates bought Corbis and he still can't manage to make it profitable after many years.
295
« on: February 08, 2010, 14:28 »
F&H just want to pump up the balance sheet ready for a profitable sale, why would they care about contributors?
Who can blame them ? Their choice is about either screwing new contributors getting 80% of their sales or screwing their exclusives getting 60% of their sales but also selling their high res files at 0.25$ via ThinkStock. However we turn the cards on the table it's a win-win scenario... for Getty.
296
« on: February 08, 2010, 13:10 »
Let me paraphrase that into what I've been saying for a couple of years.
Cutting out the small agencies is a good way to bring more
money on the table for serious agencies.
Stop adding the fly-by-night subscription places that pop up like mushrooms on rotting fallen trees. 
There's no more serious agencies. The most serious, Getty, is willing to ripoff its own top sellers with unwanted 0.25$/photo deals. Killing the smaller worms can only do good, thought.
297
« on: February 08, 2010, 11:41 »
I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that actually the market basically wants very cheap and quite expensive images. I'm not sure there is much space for anything in the middle.
I have been thinking the same... http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-midstock/why-does-midstock-not-work/
Midstock doesn't fly because it can't compete with microstock, not because it's a bad idea. It's not the market "wanting" cheap price and expensive images, the market was happy to pay RM prices until few years ago, it's because of Getty that nowadays they expect to pay peanuts for images that they were used to pay 100$ a pop. And guess what ? Now they want more ... cheaper images, higher quality ... well i'm afraid soon they'll have to shoot the pics themselves as many contributors will give up.
298
« on: February 08, 2010, 11:35 »
The concern at the moment is that iStock appears to have gone mad and to be attempting hara-kiri by urging its customers to go away and save money by joining a cheaper sister site. Look at the long Thinkstock thread over there (too long, too many irrelevant posts, but it is important).
Just as exclusivity starts to look alluring, IS shoots itself in the .... head.
What did you expect ?
Only small specialized agencies respect and care about their photographers.
What I didn't expect is that Getty would go out one morning and shoot its prize milch cow. It's nothing to do with respecting photographers, it's about taking a valuable ultra-successful business and adopting a policy that seems designed to wreck it and reduce the parent company's income. It seems irrational, which is not what I expect from Getty.
Your suggestion that Getty wants to flood the micro market with a pile of point and shoot subscription trash gives me some hope that a better-quality midstock market will emerge for those who want something better than rubbish. Of course, if Getty has wiped out istock in the meantime, it won't be them.
Microstock would be great as just a place selling cheap "leftovers" for graphic designers. That's actually how iStocker started. Problem is they're now asking high cost pictures that need to be technically perfect to pass their QC costing time and energy not to mention 1000s of $ in gear. Who can really sustain such a business model apart the few top sellers and the ones who own Getty ? Costs go up, profits go down. And here's people calling us crybabies for pointing this out.... 
299
« on: February 08, 2010, 11:28 »
Jon Klein has more of a grasp on the industry and it shows since he's taken iStock from a small company to a force with over $200 million (? can't remember what they were saying) in sales in 5 years. iStock knows what they are doing, and they are the ones pushing midstock pricing on their site. But hey, I don't expect you to do anything but hate on what they are doing anyways ... its just easier to complain
Do you work for Getty ? What do you buy with 0.25$ ? A half cup of instant coffee ?
300
« on: February 08, 2010, 10:45 »
If microstock start being more selective with new contributors there's a chance
only the ones really wanting to get into the business will get a foot in the door.
Why should they accept any guy sending them 4 decent images ?
Is that a rhetorical question?
If that happened - someone else would set up a site which people could get on with 4 decent images. And before long they would have a nice chunk of content to sell cheap.
As long as the market wants cheap usable images somebody is going to supply them.
I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that actually the market basically wants very cheap and quite expensive images. I'm not sure there is much space for anything in the middle.
It's not about 25c or 30c or 10c. It's about the %age.
What i mean is the pie is not big enough for everybody. Booting out the small contributors is a good way to bring more money on the table for serious shooters. Let the small fishes free to join the third-rate micro agencies selling for 0.10$/download. The market wants high cost images and is willing to pay 0.25$ ? Then I'm afraid the only solution is outsourcing to India or China. How can they want more for less ? Nobody's gonna shoot for less than 0.25$ and the market will realize it the hard way i hope.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
