|
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 - VB inc
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 26
276
« on: March 05, 2012, 22:24 »
I have an intuos and the client site i goto has bamboo. There is a pretty noticeable difference between those products and i must say that i have been spoiled by my experience with intuos as the bamboo isnt as sensitive. I guess thats why bamboo's are much cheaper.
277
« on: March 01, 2012, 20:14 »
You bring up an interesting point. I mainly make most of my micro income on vectors as exclusive to istock. These days, i do get happy when one of my vetta images gets downloaded and i get around $30 per download. I think thats the only reason i stay exclusive there. For the higher royalties.
Given the recent events at istock, I would love to jump ship and upload to SS and other sites but i get upset thinking people are downloading my images for almost next to nothing. I just don't believe in the subscription model for the way i work. I'd rather i get 50 people downloading my work rather than 2000 for the same revenue since i spend many hours on one design.
278
« on: February 06, 2012, 23:12 »
Attending this bootcamp will pretty much give a huge boost to any photographers resume and will give him/her an advantage to stand out in the crowded field. Win win for both parties IMO.
Resume? Who for? What 'employment' might they gain learning stock photography with Yuri? Work as a image reveiwer for pennies at SS?
Excuse my ignorance as im not a photographer, but aren't there plenty of jobs/contracts outside of microstock? Couldn't a photographer land a gig working at some sort of agency or landing some commercial jobs based on his portfolio and resume of works on his bio page of his website? 'employment' is more than a fulltime job and im sure its more about who you know than how much even in the photography field if you had roughly the same amount of talent and hard work.
279
« on: February 06, 2012, 18:40 »
Attending this bootcamp will pretty much give a huge boost to any photographers resume and will give him/her an advantage to stand out in the crowded field. Win win for both parties IMO.
280
« on: January 12, 2012, 12:44 »
Ive been getting a lot of refund notices for my files these days. I am thinking this is yet another scheme to take more money from contributors as they/we have absolutely no way in asking for proof that a client asked for a refund. We just need to believe istock???
281
« on: September 28, 2011, 01:23 »
thnx for the link! great viewing. it reminds me of a short animation regarding this issue i saw 5 years ago.
interesting times we live in
282
« on: September 27, 2011, 13:52 »
proven sellers are taking a back seat to the newer files in this new best match.
people scream newer files are not being seen for how long... now we have this best match and its killing my bottom line since i have been disgusted w istock and havent produced for microstock in quite some time.
283
« on: September 26, 2011, 14:03 »
photodune is relatively new but part of Envato Marketplace. These sites have a lot of buyers. Right now these buyers are buying images at microstock sites. Photodune changes this and will begin to pull in more buyers due to cheap prices and growing library. Im thinking photodune is the site Fotolio is talking about. Look through all the affiliate sites on Envato and see how much products are being sold for. Its a pretty good deal for the buyer and contributors on the whole gets crumbs IMO.
284
« on: September 24, 2011, 09:44 »
. how are you going to tax internet gambling when all these sites operate outside of usa?
Do we really need such easy access to it from our homes?
I think it would be amazing if individual states ran internet poker sites. The revenue could go to schools or maybe help fund the prisons loaded with people arrested for smoking marijuana.
that will never happen due to politics. Plenty of people will object (conservatives?) to state operated gambling sites and will just use this as another example of govt control.
285
« on: September 22, 2011, 15:32 »
sensitive arent we? please dont take my statement to mean that i am against gambling. i do my fair share of gambling once or twice a year at vegas. Im just happy the temptation for me not to log in at pokerstars everyday is gone. I have played countless hours of poker for about a year online 2 years ago and was even tempted to do that fulltime as i was up quite a lot of money at one point. But as usual, you win some and you lose some. But i came to the conclusion after playing online for about a year(usually playing anywhere from 4-6 games at once) that it really was a big waste of time and energy for me. Stressful job at that too. I never fully trusted playing poker online anyways as there seemed to be very little regulations in this industry. how are you going to tax internet gambling when all these sites operate outside of usa? "... which was essentially the argument that justified Prohibition. What a great success that programme was. Nuff said."  prohibition was an all out ban on alcohol??? this isnt a ban on gambling. you can still gamble, just not at your house. Anyone with a small bit of IQ knows gambling is pretty addictive. Do we really need such easy access to it from our homes? I wish i can have those hundreds of hours of my life back and i didnt even lose!
286
« on: September 22, 2011, 12:44 »
gambling, while fun and addicting, ruins lives. nuff said
287
« on: September 21, 2011, 15:27 »
Do you think there is any light at the end of the tunnel or it is better to cut one's losses?
Short answer is no light at the end of the tunnel. No more easy money on microstock as this industry has matured. This microstock/crowd sourcing model really favors the agencies. IMO, the only way the crowd sourcing model succeeds for the contributors is an agency from the contributors themselves. Theres tons of issues on this debate. I can only comment on vectors. I would say it all depends on each individual and how good/talented they are relative to the current competition. Only the best/talented will do well on microstock from now on. Not only talent but knowledge of what sells. Im exclusive at istock and the competition is only getting stronger year after year. Ask yourself, can you compete and succeed in this ever growing competition? i no longer think i can retire off microstock as i used to. Shutterstock has surprised me with all the great creative content I have been seeing lately. Im not sure exactly when the change happened, but it feels like it has been like the last year or 2. I know most people here love SS but I have never been happy with the subscription model. Im also deeply worried about the future of designers and illustrators. How can freelancers justify their $XX-XXX hr rate when you see designs that are going for pennies on sites like these. This will undoubtably have a trickle down effect where the average client in the future will be expecting less and less money going to the designer overall. Im sure one can make the argument that the very nature of microstock undercuts professional wages and such. This might be a short term gain for the contributor but the trend it is creating isn't positive as far as wages go IMO. woah, i might have gone off topic a bit.  I think it really boils down to how much your check is per week. If your not getting a paycheck every week from istock, i would pull out as it isn't that much to consider. When your making a significant income, theres more to consider. every things relative.
288
« on: September 21, 2011, 13:44 »
I'd like to read some analysis about all this vector situation. Where is the problem? Or, what is the problem? New sites? Piracy? Prices? Lots of new artists? Best Match? Bad marketing?
There are a lot of new opportunities popping out every day outside. Tablets, cell phones, social media sites, etc... So, why our sales go down instead of growing? Thoughts?
I think the economy is pretty crappy and is seriously stalled with no growth and i think the US is definitely in a double dip recession. There's more competition and buyers leaving istock due to many reasons. Another factor I believe is playing a part in vectors demise on istock is that the vectors keep losing valuable slots in the first couple of pages to new collections like agency, vetta, exclusive+, photo+, editorial... throw in audio and video... all these new collections are more money for GETTY and is surely best match for GETTY and not to the contributors. my top sellers were consistently on one of the first in 20 slots until the end of 2010. Now they can be found on page 2 or 3 of 200 images per page. My 30+ dls a month files now get me 10-20 dls. istock clearly treats vector contributors as second class citizens. Take the slider that they introduced. Put that in the lowest/cheapest one dot setting and do a search for anything. no vector files above 8 credits show up in that search which pretty much eliminates 90% of my portfolio. Funny, i spent the last 3 years tailoring my portfolio to files priced at 15 credits and above because that was the only way to maximise earnings. My guess is anywhere from 10-25% of searches on istock are used in those settings now. Everything that has happened within the last 18 months was in no way positive for the vector contributor.
289
« on: September 20, 2011, 10:17 »
Theres too much of everything. Time for WWIII
The squeeze has started back in 08. globalization and expansion has peaked. Economy is terrible worldwide and thats the main source of sales dropping. Everyone talks about the arab spring as a good thing. The arab spring is about the lack of jobs and young people having to revolt and blame the people in charge for their situation. I give a 2 year buffer before crisis mode. Maybe this is what 2012 is all about
290
« on: September 19, 2011, 17:47 »
years ago I probably would have argued that iStock doesn't do special deals with hand-picked contributors. but then I saw the speed with which contributor Elena Vizerskaya was brought in, downloaded, made exclusive and boom--all in a very orchestrated fashion.....I love her work, that is beside the point. and theoretically I don't have any problem with superstar contributors being brought in to boost traffic etc.
however, there are clearly many special deals going down these days.....like Agency contributors with flexible exclusivity etc. not to mention special collections we're ostracized from. the backroom shenanigans are so much more apparent today, that even we optimists are in or ready to jump into self-preservation mode.
Why do you mean by "brought in"? As far as I know she had a POW, yes, and she became exclusive after reaching 250 downloads.
Yeah, i remember her getting 250 dls real fast...
291
« on: September 17, 2011, 13:10 »
its really shameful what is going on in the us health care system.
I had to goto the ER one time and remember seeing $44 as part of the bill for two aspirins.
292
« on: September 16, 2011, 09:38 »
an excerpt from the documentary "Sicko"
thanks nixon
293
« on: September 15, 2011, 15:42 »
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?prev_sort_method=popular&gallery_id=146584&safesearch=1&images_per_page=100&thumb_size=small&prev_sort_method=newest&sort_method=popular&page=1Just came across this design studios portfolio on SS and i have to say i am very impressed with the quality and a little worried. Its pretty obvious to me that there are numerous different artists work in this portfolio with over 360 pages on 100 image per page setting. The first 10 pages by popular setting are really great works and then you goto page 300 and the work is of a lower standard. If its not legitimate, im more than worried about some type of scam going on here. Anyone familiar with this portfolio? Im really curious to know if an actual design studio would go through all this for subscription prices only on shutterstock. Wouldnt this design studio try to make money off its own designs outside shutterstock? Tried googling them and nothing comes up. very fishy indeed since some of these designs are spectacular and IMO command higher prices. But who cares if they are stolen bundled images and the thief wants a quick buck. I can be totally wrong and a bunch of artists formed this group on SS working out of china or india where wages tend to be cheaper.
294
« on: August 23, 2011, 09:22 »
vectorstock is a joke. It just screams of cheap value. What do you expect with $1 a vector site. Im sure im not the only one insulted with these prices.
295
« on: August 20, 2011, 08:48 »
wow ludar, you have a lot of time on your hands. Thank you for your vigilance. 
296
« on: August 20, 2011, 08:43 »
@holgs:
Nobody here looks for a white knight, especially no white knight, who wants to change his business for the better (in the meaning of "his better"). Have a look at the other topic: "How to fight against lower and lower commissions!?" at http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/how-to-fight-against-lower-and-lower-commisions!/ and try to follow the discussion there.
@Ralf you've probably missed about 3 years of discussions on this exact same topic. I don't think its inappropriate to respond to comments on the thread that they're made. Every time one of the agencies - and lets face it Fotolia has cut commissions more often than anyone - cuts their commissions one of these threads starts that doesn't go anywhere. Given that this is manly a non-istock-exclusive forum, the thread inevitably turns into an anti-istock sentiment, which at the moment I don't have energy for. Yes the commission is as low as 15% for non-exclusives (which for the record I don't agree with) but for many exclusives its still the best way of maximising their income.
I've already taken about the only step that was available to me to increase my % commission, my total income and my revenue per Download. For me that was going exclusive on iStock. Obviously that's not a popular option around here at the moment. Minimum subscription prices on the partner program are 0.40 which is higher than on any of the other agencies. A bad month on iStock is currently higher than my previous BME as an independent, and my total portfolio size is still about 30% smaller than it was on sites like SS. Nevertheless I'm not oblivious to what else is going on in the industry - what happens on one site often has a flow-on effect elsewhere. Perversely contributors leaving iStock exclusivity probably gives Fotolia more room to move in further cutting commissions.
If I was still on Fotolia, my percentage as a silver level contributor would now be between 14-23% for credit downloads made in Euros (which are the overwhelming majority of sales), and back down to 29c for subscriptions (I shudder to think what percentage that is). An entry level non-exclusive there would be getting as little as 11% on some Euro credit sales.
Probably the best thing about becoming exclusive was being able to delete my portfolio on FT - in hindsight I wish I'd done it when they announced their first round of cuts.
well said!
297
« on: August 19, 2011, 14:15 »
i should apologize to all who had to wade through that. i really should have just used the ignore button but i have very little tolerance to people that think they are better than others and feel the need to belittle them while at the same time think that they are actually helping anyone out. There will be newbies reading this forum that have no idea whats going on and would take whatever she said to be the truth.
298
« on: August 19, 2011, 09:10 »
Buyers use photo sharing sites to post up their images all the time. I assume they are sharing them with clients or something. Or was there something else?
There are all kinds of ways to share photos without making them public for anyone to download. These are unwatermarked images, the one is available at 850 x 565 pixels, lots of size for web use.
Even if the intent was to share with clients, Mattcba and the franchise co. are enabling copyright infringement. That's a problem.
Sure there are other ways to share photos but Flickr is the easiest way and is well known to most people. What you say is correct but unfortunately, most people/buyers rarely has the owner of the image in mind when they are doing something. Only when there is a good chance of a monetary penalty or jail time from their actions would things change for the better for the image owner.
299
« on: August 19, 2011, 09:00 »
i would def not recommend exclusivity these days. If i had a choice myself, i would be independent. the buyers have left the building. most long time successful exclusives are reporting a drop in earnings. some by almost half these days. sorry to burst your bubble but thats the new reality at istock.
300
« on: August 18, 2011, 18:15 »
is this poll for independents only? it wouldnt make sense otherwise
Why ever not?
It's for everone.
i answered "more" since i think agents getting more than 15% in any type of field is morally wrong
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 26
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
