|
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 - Pixart
3101
« on: July 01, 2007, 18:20 »
I worked for this guy once who had a.... wait a minute, it was so unremarkable I can't even remember what it was... a red square or a green circle or something on canvas in a big frame... and he paid about 2 million for it. Perhaps this paper bag is hanging with pride above his mantle somewhere.
3102
« on: June 28, 2007, 10:06 »
Is it just me or have they picked up the speed? Gosh, it's almost as fast as the competitors this morning... and I had 4 sales yesterday. Miracle.
3103
« on: June 27, 2007, 10:04 »
Isn't Bryan the greatest?
(Can Fortunefame then join the Sideshow?)
3104
« on: June 27, 2007, 10:02 »
Oh, boy Richardh.... you better consider a new name fast, you may save yourself a headache/heartache in the long run. Someone pointed out the confusion factor, but such a similar domain business model is just BAD for your business... if they end up in some big scandal your name will also be smeared. If their product sucks, so does your name. If they want to start a smear campain... oh boy... and the clicks you may miss in the search engines. All they have to do is use your keywords to steal some traffic... buyers come looking for you, land there, it's not what they expect and so they go back to Istock.
Also... what's with the long domain extension? more important than a business name these days is getting a good .com address.... who (outside of Europe perhaps?) will remember .co.uk? Can you at least point a .com to this url?
Sorry if I sound blunt, I just wish you a successful start. It would be pretty hard to change names in a couple years.
3105
« on: June 26, 2007, 20:46 »
The SS forums are a bore anyway... show me your best photo of a tulip... and it's usually the same 5 or 6 people doing all the talking. Much nicer place here. Even though we can speak uncensored, everyone is respectful.
3106
« on: June 26, 2007, 09:50 »
I think everyone should boycott the site until they get FTP and IPTC reading on line.
By all means reserve you username but dont upload. This is the approach I am taking.
I think this is a wise approach CJPhoto. I did sign up last night, but thought I'd hold off on the uploading. It would also suck if they gave a bonus for submitting later on to attract new artists. (It didn't seem right signing up to another site though when no one gets a referral bonus though!)
3107
« on: June 26, 2007, 09:45 »
as FT have pointed out, they sold '10,000 pictures' on the day V2 went live..... Companies rushing to use their credits while they still can, perhaps? They didn't say "purchased new credits", did they? Would be more interesting to know how many new credits packages were sold.
3108
« on: June 25, 2007, 13:26 »
I like the about page the best:
https://www.snapvillage.com/AboutSnapVillage.aspx
At this point maybe they launched before they were ready? It's blank- maybe they didn't have anything to say 
I'm actually surprised they didn't do a content drive first.
LOL... there was nothing there this morning... they must have read your post Bryan cuz it's full now!
3109
« on: June 25, 2007, 13:23 »
I'm lucky my sales there suck anyway.
3110
« on: June 22, 2007, 08:54 »
And then they need to be more diverse than another 180 aircraft shots!
Yes, Sharply definitely has the best aircraft images - but at some point won't he just be competing with himself? Not sure how to make sense out of this thought... in Sharply's case, with his "niche" - if Istock only sells 100 aircraft shots a day he would sell 100 photos and no more.... wouldn't going exclusive be a negative thing? There would only be so many aircraft travel sales at one site - wouldn't he have more sales by spreading his folio across more sites? Sharply - my thoughts are meant to be a compliment to your quality of work because I sincerely think it's fabulous. But, I'm sure you do have more than aircraft in your folio - haven't browsed in a while.
3111
« on: June 22, 2007, 08:38 »
I also might point out that if you have some kind of niche - like you work in a hospital/coal mine/police station and have access to an environment that the rest of us don't - you can really take advantage of the situation.
3112
« on: June 21, 2007, 10:46 »
Is it just me, or are there a lot of EL's at LO? Not that I've had one... but it seems that I notice more comments from LO than anywhere? Or is that because everyone is so happy they've had a sale period?
In Bryan's other post: Well, from first hand experience, those artist that have larger files will have higher margins. Our xLarge and xxLarge sell for $10 and $20- a few of these sales will quickly add up.
We don't add the extra pixels to the largest size- instead it gets put into the extended license original size. I've seen many of these purchases made purely for the extra pixels.
This is something I did not know myself... I always wondered where my extra pixels went... so I doubt the buyers realize either. When you view a photo at LO you don't know that the EL is also a larger file because the dimensions are not there.
3113
« on: June 21, 2007, 10:35 »
thought it was varying power levels from my generator.
LOL.... It took me a minute to remember that you live on a boat! (Don't you?)
3114
« on: June 20, 2007, 12:47 »
Has anyone been to one of these events? I was thinking about visiting Edmonton the week before this. Wondering if it would be worth the added expense of 3 days in Calgary.
3115
« on: June 20, 2007, 11:13 »
Do you have a normal hourly rate, travel stipend, equipment rental rate.. etc. that you would have charged a stranger to photograph something else - I don't know - flower arrangments or a new fashion line of clothing?
Realistically, the band may never sell 100,000 cd's. BUT - if they are a smashing success - they may sell millions of cds, who knows. Either way, it does work out to nice exposure for you.
I would determine what you would have charged a stranger. I'd draw up an agreement limiting their use of the photograph to just the cd, and to just 100,000 copies. Make sure you demand a photo credit.
Ultimitely, Universal may want ownership of the photo and they would have to negotiate with you. There will be a strong image association with the cd - and it will presumably have many other uses: print ads, posters, media kits, television stills. If they want to use the cd image on their marketing - make Universal negotiate for the right.
I know how it is, you want to help the "struggling artist". You can't give it away. Well, you almost can and feel good about contributing to their success - but if you restrict the usage of the photo you may have more bargaining power upon their success.
edit: Forgot to mention merchandising royalties. If they have a sold-out world tour, that's an awful lot of t-shirts you would want a percentage of. I guess what I was trying to say is don't give it all away. Let them do the cd cover, but maybe you can make $ in the end if you restrict the usage.
3116
« on: June 20, 2007, 10:38 »
It was pretty clear that this one should win. The photo is absolutely brilliant. Eco, you definitely create some of the most memorable images I have ever come upon. (I smile everytime I think Meerkat).
3117
« on: June 19, 2007, 10:22 »
If you are wondering about Istock, you MUST try. I have a mere 4 images there and have made $99.19 since joining 3 months ago. 4 photos! (Mind you, 1 of the 4 has earned most of that). I've only tried to upload a few of my best there. They either don't like, or send back a note on how to fix the problem. The 2 that I actually took the time to fix were accepted the second time. You have to pass their submission test, but if you don't pass the first time try again. I think that if you poll everyone on this site, Istock will be their #1 or #2 earner.
3118
« on: June 19, 2007, 10:09 »
... and are those photos from IS exclusive contributors? :-P
[/quote]
Gosh, I didn't check. I'll browse again when I have a little time here.
I think I'll review a couple of my shots and then and see what happens upon submission. If acceptable I'll work on the rest. The photos are actually of people and the books are just in the environment. I'll look for publisher's marks first - but there must be 100 books in the background. Hello PhotoShop.
Thanks for the input.
3119
« on: June 18, 2007, 13:54 »
I know Bryan was making a few "appearances" recently, and every time he does a trade show etc. there seems to be a jump in sales for a while. One of these days I think they are really going to sprint ahead of FT, BigStock. Their $ per sale is one of the best, so just a few sales = close to or better than FT for me at the end of the month. (But I must admit, I was very lazy ordering my keywords at FT and on my list to fix.)
3120
« on: June 18, 2007, 12:05 »
I have a few photos taken in a library. I tried blurring book titles out with some success on a couple (acceptable at most sites, focus in wrong place at SS). Yet, when I was browsing Istock last night they have some good selling library photos where the book titles are definitely clear. (I was quite surprised to see, because Istock rejected some with a map on the wall in the background! And rightly so, I guess.)
Am I wrong thinking I need to obscure the title and details from the book spine on these books? Oh the lessons we learn as we go! If I had shot from the proper angle they would have been mostly obscured in the first place. It's amazing what you can see at 100%... I could read every word on the book on her lap in a couple of them!
3121
« on: June 15, 2007, 13:24 »
No matter how bad it is shutting down in the middle of the week, I'm sure they lost more customers with the sluggish site than they ever would being down a couple days. Thank goodness they have a splash page explaining what is going on. It would just suck for someone with a small budget though who only has credits there and needs access today. I might be wrong, but I think that in the past Fotolia had quite a good reputation and client base. Hopefully the changes will be a positive turnaround for them.
3122
« on: June 14, 2007, 14:58 »
Can't find a photo on the site that has anything but a "0" beside downloads.
3123
« on: June 14, 2007, 13:52 »
Congratulations and thank you for sharing your experience. By the time a lot of us can join the club it will cost $ to join, so feedback will help us make future decisions.
I have heard only positive things about this midstock LO experiment. Leaf had a nice EL a month back as well. I'd like to hear more about everyone's experience with the sideshow when they have some time to evaluate it.
3124
« on: June 14, 2007, 11:35 »
I have better sales at BigStock than Fotolia and I think it is likely because I was too *lazy* to order my keywords. I tried, but it was just too agonizing... now that the system should be faster I will clean up my act.
By the way... I went through my files at Dreamstime and 1/2 done at Lucky Oliver by putting the major keywords in my titles rather than artsy titles. Most sound like horrible broken English, but it seems to have boosted sales a little, even got 2 sales at LO this week.
3125
« on: June 13, 2007, 19:56 »
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
