|
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 - Lee Torrens
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15
276
« on: November 08, 2007, 11:14 »
Ha ha! I knew I forgot something. I'm sure both Steve and Alan would have been agreeable. 
277
« on: November 08, 2007, 10:10 »
FYI does not look a think like his avatar - I guess that was my only disappointment  - got a cool t-shirt, too. I don't agree. There's a definite resemblance.  That's him on the right, in the somewhat obscured StockXpert t-shirt. (sorry to blow your cover Steve!)
278
« on: November 08, 2007, 08:20 »
yes
279
« on: November 08, 2007, 08:01 »
Yep. Caveat emptor.
280
« on: November 08, 2007, 07:49 »
I had the same issue. The London Eye's design is copyright, so you can't submit photos of it to any stock agency. Any agency that approves your photos is putting their buyers at risk.
It's a shame, as I know how much work goes in to 68 images. The only consolation is that you learned a valuable lesson. There are quite a few landmarks that are protected by copyright, including the Chrysler building in New York and the Eiffel Tower lights (so only at night).
You will be able to submit any photos where the London Eye isn't the primary focus of the image. A photo of the London skyline that happens to include the London Eye is acceptable, while a photo of the London Eye itself is not.
Did any other agencies accept the same shots or are you exclusive with Fotolia?
281
« on: October 31, 2007, 19:22 »
Bugger! I thought I was on a winner there. I'm going to petition PayPal! Thanks for letting me know.
282
« on: October 31, 2007, 13:04 »
Once per month provides the efficiency of 'batching'. Unless you have a compelling circumstance, there's no point doing something twice if you can do it once.
As for the currency, I'm lucky in that I spend money on other things in USD and can usually pay directly from PayPal. This way I'm partially hedged against the currency fluctuations.
If you operate in a currency other than USD, have the USD currency added to your bank account. Most banks will do this, and if not, find one that will.
This gives you three advantages:
1. You can earn interest on your money while it's still in USD
2. You can take advantage of the bank's better exchange rates (always better than PayPal and Moneybookers)
3. You can wait for the foreign currency cycle to be in your favour before exchanging your money. Even if you need to have your money right away, you can leave a little behind each month so when the dollar finally bounces back you'll be able to take advantage.
Of course there are always complications with personal situations, but you can potentially save yourself a fair percentage of your earnings by doing it this way.
283
« on: October 31, 2007, 12:09 »
He gets back November 3, though I imagine he'll have a lot of catching up to do!
Indeed, he has earned it.
284
« on: October 16, 2007, 07:26 »
it doesn't seem to display correctly on my browser (Firefox on Mac).
Epixx, I had the same issue with Firefox on Mac when I upgraded my website. Turned out to be that the old stylesheet was cached. Hold the Shift key and click Refresh and it'll download the latest stylesheet (hold the shift key until the page has finished loading).
285
« on: October 15, 2007, 12:15 »
I'm surprised nobody here has mentioned it yet, but Crestock have launched their new updated website today.
I have a full review on my site, but in short, I think it takes them from near the bottom of the pile to near the top in terms of site design and usability. They've got some new features and thankfully kept their slick upload process.
286
« on: October 08, 2007, 10:11 »
I adore my avatar. It represents me in many ways: 1. I love technology and my laptop is my tool for work and life (unfortunately it's not as nice as the one in the photo) 2. I love coffee. I didn't drink it until I was 24 which I suspect is why I'm now hypersensitivity to it. A strong cappuccino gives me a buzz not-dissimilar to class A drugs, but with no come-down 3. I work from home and I'm a teleworking enthusiast. I have homes in Melbourne and Buenos Aires, and I've been living in London for the past six months. (that makes me sound wealthy, but I'm not) 4. In business my foundation principles are elimination and automation, hence the conspicuous absence of people! I purchased this photo from iStockphoto and I use it everywhere. Best dollar I ever spent!
287
« on: October 02, 2007, 13:01 »
Peat Bog, the trend is brandable over relevance.
The most famous case was amazon.com who could have gone with books.com (yes, they were THAT early!), but imagine how inappropriate that name would be now given all the businesses that amazon.com are running.
Look at Fotolia as a name. It's both brandable and relevant. It's more specific and creative, giving it a stronger identity than names like photos.com (who sell stock photos). Photos.com cannot protect their brand from anyone using stockphotos.com or bigphotos.com or freephotos.com. However, Fotolia would have a strong case against anyone using stockfotolia.com.
Also, look at how Fotolia's brand allows for vertical expansion into other photography related products and services. They could easily start selling camera, photography courses, macrostock photos or media services for the photography market. It's more restrictive than amazon.com, but much less restrictive than BigStockPhoto, for example.
In short, you don't necessarily need to have your keyword in your domain name. surnamephotos.com is no better than surname.com, though will always be more likely to be available. AKA Tom's name, Pegasi8, is a good example. It's very brandable. Perhaps not as memorable as amazon.com, but we don't all have the extremely-early adopter advantage of Jeff Bezos (amazon.com founder and CEO)!
So don't feel you need to have PeatBogPhotos.com.
288
« on: September 29, 2007, 10:28 »
Agreed, though if large numbers of contributors opt-out of subscription sales, it'll be very frustrating for subscribers who'll see images they can't have unless they pay with credits. It might turn away subscriptions, so those high sales never come through for those that did opt-in at the start.
289
« on: September 29, 2007, 09:28 »
You're not mistaken, but we're off the point.
Sharply will go exclusive when he reaches Diamond level. It's a mathematical decision - at that point it becomes financially wise to do so. (I can't find a quote for this, so correct me if it's inaccurate)
If he was more concerned about the long-term state of the industry than his earnings, he'd stop contributing to Shutterstock immediately.
He's wisely concerned with the long-term state of his earnings, not the long-term state of the market.
The point was, he's focussed on hard work and ongoing supply rather than a portfolio as an asset. This is still the case given his strategy to go exclusive.
290
« on: September 29, 2007, 09:02 »
How's that relevant?
291
« on: September 29, 2007, 08:58 »
That's kind of my point. I'm already on micros, so what do I have to lose by putting my portfolio on Alamy?
If an Alamy buyer realises my images are also on micros and boycots my portfolio, even if he tells all his friends, I've still lost nothing. If Alamy earnings cover the time to upsize and upload, then I'm in front.
It goes back to getting your photos sold, regardless of the channel.
292
« on: September 29, 2007, 08:48 »
I haven't noticed that myself. What I have noticed are three tiers of contributors:
1. Those with a small portfolio (such as myself) who are primarily concerned with selling their photos.
2. The middle tier with portfolio size roughly in the range 500 to 2000 who focus on strategy and the deal they get from each agency, often deleting their images from agencies they don't like.
3. The superstars like Yuri, Ron and Andres who are primarily concerned with selling their photos. All these three contribute to agencies that have subscriptions and aren't deleting any images.
I'm not criticizing anyone here. I'm in group 1 but follow the strategy and analysis like group 2.
It's true, I don't care about the long term effects. The market is changing every day, so what you plan today will be irrelevant tomorrow. Sacrificing income today so you'll have a better market tomorrow is silly. You don't know what's coming or who will be in the market tomorrow. That's why so many MACROstock photographers are upset about MICROstock. They planned and "protected" their industry, only to have it blown away by new technology.
Yes, photographers with larger portfolios have more to lose, and it's sad, but that's what happens in capitalist markets. That's exactly why Corbis aren't profitable - they invested massive amounts of money in photos just before photos became obscenely cheap to produce. It was a strategy that didn't work, and photographers who see their large portfolios as their primary income producing asset are right to be worried.
Listen to Sharply_done. His focus is on working hard and ongoingly producing new images. His strategy is sound, and based on reality and without emotional baggage. It's not about building your portfolio as an asset. It didn't work for Corbis and it won't work for anyone else.
Microstock changed the rules. You have to catch up and stop thinking with the old rules.
293
« on: September 28, 2007, 18:54 »
Alamy, just got accepted, so no there as well. There it will be a slow build as I only want to upload material that I don't have on the micros. I'm sure a customer would be ticked to buy a pic there and then see it later on SS for a quarter!
Someone who owns a small macrostock agency who is now starting to put some of his portfolio (tens of thousands) on microstock agencies told me, "you're in the business of selling photos, so sell them wherever you can". I can't argue with his logic. Plus: Alamy buyers are paying for the Alamy screening process and the bragging rights to say they buy only macrostock. Any buyer who's upset to pay Alamy prices for an image also available at Shutterstock would likely be checking Shutterstock first. Those who don't care, don't check. Rather than "a quarter" the image will cost said buyer $214 (or whatever subscription they buy).
294
« on: September 28, 2007, 18:39 »
I have 148 images there and without referrals I'd be just reaching first payout. I've had 3 EL sales in my 6 months with LO, consistent with Bryan's comments about high EL sales. I have complete faith in LO for these reasons: 1. Bryan listens and responds, as you can see above. How many other CEOs do you see doing that? (Yes Bryan, we all know you're really "CEO"! ) 2. They're already cashflow positive, so their model is sustainable the they can focus 100% of growth and innovation. 3. They're honest and open, which is refreshing. Bryan has just said they're working on technical infrastructure preparing for growth. Given two of the Big 6 have had growth-caused outages this month, this seems a prudent strategy. 4. They're chasing long-tail business. They're not trying to get rich quick, they're actually focusing on the long haul. 5. They're innovating. Whether they get it right or not isn't as important as the fact they're thinking and acting. 6. You have to believe Bryan on this one (and I do for reason #3), but 12 consecutive months of revenue growth is promising. I'd be happier if I could say the same about more agencies.
295
« on: September 28, 2007, 18:19 »
StockManiac, I find your comments about a microstock union very interesting. Have you seen what's been happening in the macrostock market in the last two months? Getty Images offered a $49 web-use license and the industry went into uproar. The interesting part is that all the photographer representatives, in the form of industry associations, have been the ones "making submissions" to Getty and "writing letters" - the exact "organization" you're referring to.
Now, I don't agree with you about unions, but you've really got me thinking. The disorganization is what made microstock possible. If microstock had been geared toward professional photographers instead of hobbyists it would never have succeeded. Can you imagine professional photographers earning hundreds of dollars per sale accepting a deal to earn 25cents? The disorganization was the open market - digital camera and Internet enabled "mom n' pop" contributors - no professional photographer associations, no unions, not even industry conventions.
Getting back on to the issue of StockXpert and their subscription, they're a commercial organization offering you an opportunity. If you don't like it you can simply decline, as others have suggested. Voting with your dollars (in this case your photos) is more powerful than any union. And this way it's organic - if StockXpert contributors aren't earning sufficient royalties, they'll take their business elsewhere and StockXpert will have to re-assess or close their doors. If, however, it turns out like they predict, then their contributors will be better off and they'll continue to flourish.
In short, I don't care how much margin a microstock agency makes on their sales. I care about how much money they give me at the end of the month relative to my portfolio size. StockXpert can give me a 1% commission if they like. At the end of the month I'll look at my earnings to decide whether they're worthwhile, not at my portion.
That being said, I'd love to see you or someone else setup a microstock contributor's union. I wouldn't join, but it'd be fun to watch.
296
« on: September 22, 2007, 11:36 »
There are different ways to market your new microstock agency to contributors. - Fotolia paid contributors for each photo. - LuckyOliver gave them credits (tokens) for each photo. - Albumo is paying contributors when they reach an upload milestone. - It's my opinion that SnapVillage did deals with high-profile microstock contributors, and I wouldn't be surprised if many of the others did this as well. Yuri said that he's been offered many deals by new agencies. Leaf is right - many of them start out with the owner's own photos. You can still see Bruce Livingstone's portfolio on iStockphoto and Bryan Zmijewski's on LuckyOliver. Fundamentally, they need to inspire confidence in contributors, such that the contributors believe they'll eventually get a return. Incentives help get the ball rolling, as it's easier to attract more contributors if they can see others already have their portfolios uploaded. Flexing a bit of marketing muscle goes a long way too, as contributors can see you have the ability to draw attention. Of course it also helps if your owner is the richest man in the world!
297
« on: September 19, 2007, 16:10 »
Oh wow, Lee! That's great information. Thanks for posting that!
You're welcome. 
298
« on: September 19, 2007, 16:09 »
Oh wow, Lee! That's great information. Thanks for posting that!
299
« on: September 19, 2007, 16:09 »
Nothing like a bit of self-conversation.
Further details have come to light:
- Blank author field is a beta issue and will be resolved before full launch.
- Images cannot be licensed until full launch
- Launch is scheduled for October
300
« on: September 19, 2007, 11:13 »
Ok, just got an email from Ellen that explains it: Alliances that pay full commission to contributors get access to all images. Alliances that don't pay full commission to contributors only get access to images of contributors who have opted-in to the Alliances option on the page I linked above. All good now. She also said that BrightQube are EXCLUSIVE with Dreamstime. I take this to mean that there'll be no other microstock agencies coming on board, which seems a very odd strategy from the BrightQube point of view. One final thing. The news got out before it was intended. That's why there haven't been any press releases yet. How did Paul Melcher know??
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
