|
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 - PeterChigmaroff
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 72
351
« on: March 21, 2015, 17:10 »
Zach, I know you want to keep it simple but I feel your pricing for HD footage is too cheap. It of course matters what percentage we receive but $49 to the customer for all footage is too low. I would need to see some option for higher pricing. At this point I would pass on your company.
Zeus has a point. Even though the commissions are 100%, $49 for HD is a little low. Not cheap per se, but it could be higher. ClipCanvas sells for $69 or so, SS sells for $79 for a HD clip. Why not make the $49 a $59 or something?
I'll bump this to Zach. Why not? Why not higher prices?
352
« on: March 20, 2015, 16:07 »
You certainly don't want to lose.
353
« on: March 17, 2015, 15:01 »
I would skip over submitting video to iS.
354
« on: March 08, 2015, 21:07 »
I'm always happy to see rulings like this. But what I find weird is, it's very easy to take pictures surreptitiously, so why harass the guy (or gal) with the tripod and geeky vest?
355
« on: March 03, 2015, 14:51 »
Thanks guys!
I wouldn't be concerned over getty's financial situation. They are one of the biggest stock agencies and their earnings is several times bigger than other competitors. They have images of everyone and are literally everywhere. If could ever fall, the whole market would notice it big time. We're all small fish in a big pond anyway. It's the same as being concerned about the US having the absolute highest debt of all countries.
There are many many companies, some long gone, some on their way, which had, verbatim, statements made about them.
356
« on: March 03, 2015, 10:15 »
So a billion dollar publicly traded company is picking on contributors who ask questions about rejections? 
He did say there was a high level of conspiracy theories.
357
« on: March 03, 2015, 09:44 »
I was going to hit the AGREE button but fear retaliation.
358
« on: March 02, 2015, 20:06 »
Well, I guess jjneff wouldn't stay exclusive for 8 years if he was unsatisfied, would he? Everyone have ups and downs, projections should be made every 3 months and such.
I'll bring it forward from another thread. I'm guessing he's not too happy but doesn't know what to do. September Sales "Down a lot from last year but up from August. Time will tell with these changes" October Sales "This is a bad trend! For me average nothing amazing nothing awful. For the amount of content I have produced this year I am not happy with sales." November Sales "Very bad month on the video side! photo was average and the month as a whole was well below 2013 which was a horrible year for me." December sales "A normally low Dec. asu usual, I need Getty sales to draw my final conclusion now. iStock alone was a low average." And January 2015 Sales "Nothing to really say on the video side, very average and low. Most troubling is 7 days with zero sales. Here is hoping Getty is better but not holding my breath."
359
« on: March 02, 2015, 14:29 »
iStock has good commission for video exclusive! I have been exclusive since 2006 and my average sale income is $50.00 per sale no matter the size. On Getty it is closer to $70.00 per sale. Exclusive works for me.
I was going to mentions this as I read your comments on iStock as well but this says it better than I can; It is or it isn't? http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/how-are-your-istock-sales/msg410100/
360
« on: March 02, 2015, 10:26 »
Zach, I know you want to keep it simple but I feel your pricing for HD footage is too cheap. It of course matters what percentage we receive but $49 to the customer for all footage is too low. I would need to see some option for higher pricing. At this point I would pass on your company.
361
« on: March 01, 2015, 10:56 »
I have a hard time trusting an agency that claims to return 100% of sales. Is any one getting money from these people?
362
« on: March 01, 2015, 10:47 »
this shows the sorry situation of modern TFT displays, each one displaying a slightly different gamut (color range), i'm sure if i check the image on 3-4 different phones at least one will look blue/black.
Not at all. I have managed to see the dress both ways on the same monitor and news item. It is quite startling. Read my last post.
363
« on: February 28, 2015, 15:42 »
It will make no difference to how iStock operates or whether they are successful or not, but I closed my account out last month. The price of video is far too low to be sustainable. They could never triple sales volumes just to maintain an even cash flow. Whoever piloted that wreck should be put out to pasture.
364
« on: February 28, 2015, 15:40 »
Investors like the notion of revenues that are consistent over time and locking in customers to that company's product - that's why Wall St. has been happy with Adobe's CC changes. Getty/iStock subscriptions can be dumped any time the current term runs out with no costs of switching or any hassle to the customer.
Not only no hassle to the customer, but an actual benefit if the content elsewhere is different enough, or comes in package that is more attractive or easier to access.
365
« on: February 28, 2015, 15:35 »
And who would want to buy Getty? Can anyone think of a good new owner?
Bruce? 
I'm ambivalent.
He sold to Getty. I don't blame him for selling, that's business.
But Getty had such a bad reputation among photographers, and he surely knew that.
Getty was much respected and loved by their photographers at one time. They used to make a lot of money for their photogs.
'At one time', sure. But not by the time of the sale.
I guess my point is that whoever took over Getty at some point, back when, lacked the Midas touch. iStock too was much loved and respected by their photographers. I had a look at their forum last week and it's anything but this now.
366
« on: February 28, 2015, 12:24 »
I saw this yesterday on CBC and of the three people in the room, two saw blue/black and one white/gold. I thought for sure the white/gold was joking. I couldn't imagine how something so obviously blue/black could be interpreted as white/gold.
I took a screen shot and brought it in untouched to PS and immediately saw the white/gold. It was a very unusual experience. Then when I went back to the news item, I saw it in white/gold there. I couldn't properly reconcile the differences in my mind, even now. The differences were stark. Very interesting and I'll use it as an example next time a client tells me the colour of their sofa is not right in the photo I sell them.
367
« on: February 27, 2015, 21:23 »
And who would want to buy Getty? Can anyone think of a good new owner?
Bruce?
I'm ambivalent.
He sold to Getty. I don't blame him for selling, that's business.
But Getty had such a bad reputation among photographers, and he surely knew that.
Getty was much respected and loved by their photographers at one time. They used to make a lot of money for their photogs.
368
« on: February 27, 2015, 10:09 »
369
« on: February 27, 2015, 00:15 »
They'll find a way to have an IPO and sell 100 triillion in stocks to gullible investors.
370
« on: February 26, 2015, 15:25 »
now repaying the loans is problematic
IPO will pay off the debt. No ?
No, not if they can't convince anyone to spend the money on the stock. Would you invest heavily in a company who can't pay the bills or despite millions in sales monthly has no spare cash?
371
« on: February 25, 2015, 10:02 »
Hey, if he asks an amount and someone pays it, I don't see how it's fraud. The price is what it is, for what it is.
I totally agree. I can't help but admire anyone who can make a very descent living in a world where thousands are clawing each other's entrails out to sell their work for 22 cents a pop. That's the real scam.
372
« on: February 24, 2015, 13:22 »
373
« on: February 22, 2015, 10:42 »
You can't compare these type of business models. There is a difference between streaming music and using music for advertising or something like that. Streaming can compared with just viewing an image. So every time when someone see an ad with your picture you receive a small amount.
I can't believe that any music artist would give me the permission to use his song for advertising for just one buck like the dollar photo club do. Touring can be compared with traveling to do shots... so there are here also a lot of photographer which will lose money too.
Perhaps the comparisons aren't identical but the philosophy of companies running the businesses are. Pay out as little as possible; retain as much as possible.
374
« on: February 20, 2015, 01:40 »
Shutterstock's CSV method works well.
Not exactly convenient when you have all the data in a standard IPTC from your editor of choice and SS appears to be the only one that refuses to read it. Result is much copy/pasting and time wasted.
There are methods that don't require cut and pasting but rather generating CSV.
375
« on: February 20, 2015, 00:56 »
I don't mind 60p but really it's about the two incompatible framerates.
What I want to know is what sells better, what is more standard, what do stock buyers mostly expect.
You have to consider that most clips have no audio. Also consider that many clips can be slowed down a little or sped up a little with no real degradation of "feel". Those clips can be Interpreted to a new frame rate with no loss in quality, just a small shift in the timeline. The rest? That may depend on what the target audience is. I did say that 30P is the more common choice. At least that's what I see.
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 72
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
