|
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 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15
301
« on: September 19, 2007, 10:49 »
If you can understand what they're trying to say on this page you'll know. www.dreamstime.com/alliancesThen please explain it to me!
302
« on: September 19, 2007, 06:27 »
Check it out! brightqube.comIt's a similar concept to Image Trail, but includes a "Professional" section for macrostock and an "Everyday" section for microstock. I love the full-Flash interface. Very funky and slick. Dreamstime seem to be the only microstock agency with images in the database at the moment. Found some of mine there, but the Author field was blank.
303
« on: September 18, 2007, 11:09 »
It's good for FeaturePics, because they get traffic and inbound links to their website.
It's good for bloggers because they get free images, even if it links away from their website.
It's good for contributors because they get exposure for their portfolio.
My opinions:
It's a clever strategy from FeaturePics as they stand to benefit more than the other two groups. If it works it'll increase their traffic, search engine rankings, sales and contributions.
But! I don't think it'll work. It's aimed at bloggers who currently steal images (says so in their PR), but I can't see the incentive for the blogger to use it rather than steal. Bloggers are too small for copyright holders to chase and few have any money anyway. What's the appeal of a "legitimate" image when there's no downside to stealing one that doesn't require an outbound link?
304
« on: September 10, 2007, 14:37 »
JPEG is compressed. When you have a JPEG image open in Photoshop it tells you the uncompressed size in the bottom left-side corner. If your camera is 6MP it'll be 48MB uncompressed. Thankfully you can upload it uncompressed! 
305
« on: September 09, 2007, 13:15 »
do you think they are penalizing poor photographers in the search - for their whole portfolio, or just on a per image basis??? If they penalize the whole portfolio I should have two accounts. One for images that i know are great and another account for mediocre images.
Yeah, Dreamstime have done so since implementing their search engine 2.0. Details.
306
« on: September 09, 2007, 11:11 »
The 40% figure came from this interview. Shutterstock, along with 123rf, are the only ones that won't talk to me directly  Most agencies pay around the 5c figure per review, regardless of the outcome. So that person who uploaded 1504 cost Dreamstime $75 to reject, not to mention the bandwidth and storage costs. That's an extreme example, but if you apply the same rate to the 45,000 hatman12 estimated Shutterstock rejected in a week, that's $2,000 a week for rejections. Relatively speaking, that figure isn't a major issue for the established and successful agencies. But I also agree with Leaf. Agencies are starting to throttle back on the weaker contributors, both by limiting their upload quantity and penalizing their images' position in the search results. As the quality of images at microstock agencies increases it'll be interesting to see if the open model of microstock starts to close off and evolve back toward the exclusive domain of the elite like the former macrostock market.
307
« on: September 06, 2007, 11:23 »
Yep. The two largest stock photography companies are using the same PR firm for their microstock agency subsidiaries.
I know nothing about the PR world. Maybe it's normal for one company to be representing two competitors like this. I just thought it was interesting.
I asked Webber Shandwick about it, and they said they had different people working on the two accounts separately. The guy I spoke to, who was working on the SnapVillage account, didn't seem to be aware that his company also represented iStockphoto when I asked.
308
« on: September 06, 2007, 10:25 »
Maybe Microsoft do, I don't know. But it's more exciting than that. It's another microstock agency!
Now you have to guess which one!
Here's a hint: Who would be the most controversial, given **Corbis** own SnapVillage?
309
« on: September 06, 2007, 06:38 »
So www.webershandwick.com is doing the marketing/promotion for them i didn't know that i doubt they are cheap  .
Want to know something interesting? Guess who else Weber Shandwick have as clients?
310
« on: September 04, 2007, 07:34 »
For total income last month my rankings were:
IS
SS
DT
FT
BigStock
StockXpert
123
LO
CanStockPhoto
CR
But for earnings per photos it was
IS
StockXpert
SS
DT
BigStock
123
FT
LO
CR
CanStockPhoto
There's a big difference when looking at per-photo performance!
311
« on: August 28, 2007, 11:05 »
Also, profile pages are automatically referral landing pages at iStockphoto. If there are links to your profile you are credited with the referral of any buyer arriving via that link.
You can override it by placing ?refnum=YOURUSERNAME on the end if you want to link to someone else's profile with your own referral code.
In addition to a Vox blog or similar partnership, it could be links to your profile page.
312
« on: August 25, 2007, 07:41 »
I resolved the slowness issues by removing and re-installing Java. Speak with David, the developer, if you need to. He provides good technical support.
It's perfect if you upload a lot - whether you're a high producer or you're starting out with microstock and uploading your entire portfolio. You can leave it unattended to upload hundreds of files to 10 agencies, so it has a high capacity.
The $49 investment for the unlimited upload license pays for itself very quickly if you're uploading a lot. I estimate it saves me about a hour for every 20 photos I upload to all agencies, so the $49 was repaid very quickly. There's not too many opportunities to automate workflow in microstock, so this one is a key tool.
Freezing is right that you still have to categorize on some sites and disambiguate at iStock. But doing this in large batches increases your efficiency. Also, photos go straight through to the review queue at the agencies without categories.
For me it's a no-brainer. The $49 comes back easily, but I'll never get back the time I spent manually uploading all my photos before I found ProStockMaster.
313
« on: August 25, 2007, 06:50 »
Hey Freezing,
Your news website is doing really well. I've received 92 referred visitors from your website to mine over the past 30 days, and it's good quality traffic too - they stay longer than average and view more pages than average.
I'll keep an eye on the new location. Good luck with it.
-Lee
314
« on: August 25, 2007, 06:28 »
Correct. The print-screen button overcomes the disabled right-click. Pretty amateur stuff.
315
« on: August 23, 2007, 08:34 »
Agree. As a manual service I don't expect there's much of a market for the same reasons Leaf mentioned - if you hire an assistant you can train them and have them do it the way you want.
What would be a superior alternative is a website where people could upload their photos once to have them broadcast to their accounts at all the microstock agencies they choose. That way they only have to upload once and they still have full control. Kind of like an online version of ProStockMaster.
The issue with this model (and yours too) is that people would have to give their passwords to a third party, which definately wouldn't fly. At least with ProStockMaster they're stored in a secure database on your own computer.
316
« on: August 19, 2007, 07:23 »
Two months down the track, has anyone tried these guys? Their Alexa stats are looking good - they're getting traffic, but it doesn't look like they have many photos.
Interested to hear of any experiences.
317
« on: August 18, 2007, 08:00 »
Sales.
318
« on: August 17, 2007, 11:00 »
That stockbroker in Sydney is paying living costs over double of what Hidesy pays living outside Brisbane. Add to that the commute and 'corporate wardrobe' expenses that the stockbroker pays, but subtract Hidesy's equipment costs, and you could say she's earning double, relatively speaking.
319
« on: August 17, 2007, 08:15 »
Steve, great info there, well done. You answered a lot of questions and your info is clear. Thankyou. Just one thing: Payment also by direct bank transfer but you have to give them your bank details (scary!) It's a common concern, giving out your bank account numbers, but it's actually a great thing to do. The only risk you run is that people will give you money. They cannot make withdrawals. Why do you think it's safe to have your account numbers printed on the bottom of every check you write? Why is it great? It's automated, instant, and entirely online. I run a business in Australia, but I haven't been there for almost a year. All my clients pay me by direct deposit as I put my bank account numbers on my invoices (which are emailed in PDF). If a client ever asked, I'd accommodate alternative arrangements, but it hasn't happened yet. It's also more secure than checks. It's why many governments tax your bank account if you have a checking facility attached - they need to recover the cost of investigating check fraud. I realize this is WAY off topic, but I hope the information is of value to everybody. The less time you spend banking checks the more time you can spend creating great photos!
320
« on: July 31, 2007, 18:38 »
Freezing, Yuri makes more at Crestock than he does at LuckyOliver. (Sorry Bryan, but it's true)
I have had an EL the last two months at LO, but if I didn't they'd be earning around the same for me - my portfolio is *substantially* smaller than Yuri's, especially at those two sites.
321
« on: July 22, 2007, 12:09 »
Richard, smart move asking these questions here.
I have some questions for you:
How much capital do you have?
How many pages in your business plan?
How many business mentors do you have?
How many experts are in your team?
How much do good programmers, designers, technicians and reviewers cost in your area?
How many industry contacts do you have?
How will you differentiate your business in a crowded marketplace?
How long do your financial models project it will take before you break even?
What is your launch strategy?
Which industry events will you sponsor and speak at?
How will you incentivise us contributors to give you our images before you can deliver sales?
How many microstock agency CEOs have you interviewed?
What partnerships do you plan to create?
How will you scale your storage capacity, bandwidth and database platform?
What's your Business Continuance Plan and Disaster Recover Plan?
What legal structure will you use to contract with buyers and contributors from around the world?
Don't go in unprepared. There are hundreds of failed microstock agencies and nobody wants to see you join them.
The community here are not against new comers. They're very encouraging of anyone who can make them money without wasting their time. Once you have impressive answers to this list of questions they'll take you more seriously and give you all the assistance you need.
It's possible you will create a competitive microstock agency and make it a 'Big 7'. Just know what it will take to get you there.
322
« on: July 22, 2007, 09:25 »
Inspired by the Wikipedia entry for microstock, I define microstock as having three required characteristics: 1. Images are sourced from the public. Macrostock is exclusive, only the cream of the crop get to participate. Microstock is inclusive, anyone can contribute. The 'microstock revolution' wouldn't have happened without this element. Throw in the crowdsourcing and Web2.0 buzzwords too. 2. Images are sold at micropayment prices. This means that the prices are so low they justify grouped payments. Macrostock prices (assumed to be $500 upwards) justify a single transaction, but buyers aren't going to put in their credit card details to buy a $1 image, and the transaction costs are too high for the agencies. This is why all the microstock agencies have 'credits' systems (or 'tokens', right Bryan?) with a minimum purchase at around $10. 3. Images are sourced via the Internet. This means posting in DVDs is not the only method of contribution. Most microstock agencies accept DVDs in addition to Internet uploads. By 'required', I mean any agency that doesn't have all three of these conditions is not a microstock agency, in my opinion.
323
« on: July 22, 2007, 09:07 »
324
« on: July 09, 2007, 08:29 »
I suspect ShutterStock has a low approval average because, being one of the more high profile microstock websites, they attract the most new photographers. Those who aren't successful there probably give up and don't try the others. Although it depends if that statistic includes the test images people submit when they apply.
325
« on: July 09, 2007, 06:46 »
I uploaded 8 a couple of days after launch. It's a struggle. None have been reviewed yet.
They've done themselves a great disservice by launching like this. Contributors are discouraged from uploading by no FTP, no IPTC, dismal review speed, PayPal requirement, clunky website and no sales. Buyers are discouraged from buying by US only restrictions, summer slow period, very few photos and low image quality restrictions.
Basically, they've shot themselves in the foot. They had the brand, the marketing budget and the back-catalog to hit the market running and really compete. Instead, they've launched this thing that isn't appealing to anybody. In my opinion their strategy couldn't have been much worse.
Also, "beta" doesn't mean anything other than "we haven't finished it". Sales are possible, though at the moment they're extremely unlikely.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
