|
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 - loop
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 44
376
« on: May 11, 2012, 07:52 »
I believe it's pretty well established that iStock's turnover is three or four times Shutterstock's but what interests me is the amount that I get paid. Istock commissions are spread across a much larger pool of suppliers and may average a lower percentage than SS, though it is impossible to know for sure.
Well, I don't really know, but I think SS has probably more suppliers than istock. At least, the have more images.
377
« on: May 09, 2012, 18:23 »
You dind't understand. These 10-25 come for a selection previously made (often) by me. And not always you get many results when the requirements are specific. Obviously, ypou can always miss something, everytime and everywhere, but thas was not my point.
No, I did understand. My point was that there has to be a limit on how deep you dig. Time is money and, ultimately, getting 25 "good enough" images in a morning's work make's more sense than spending an entire week hunting out the 25 most perfect.
That's why "good enough" will do.
No "good enough", but "best of what has been seen". Thre's a big difference. Anyway, my point was that people that thinks that if not selling at cents their files won't sell or almost won't sell is wrong, according to what I've seen.
378
« on: May 09, 2012, 17:37 »
I don't quite understand this philosophy of "someting similar and cheaper will do". At least at the book publishing industry, my experience is that presented with several alternatives for a print book cover, the client (the editor, and often the author) want what they think it is the best image possible, and from plain indepedent to Vetta, let's say for (5$ to 120$ or so) they don't doubt a moment to choose what they think more adequate, regardless of the price. By the way, some of them tend to infer that high price adds value to the image ("if it's more expensive it should be better"). Of course, this is not necessarily true, but it's human nature too.
The point is that buyers will generally not be "presented with several alternatives" at different sites, they will be using one site and will choose what they think is the best among the images they see there. Would you present 10,000 different pictures to a client, in three or four different binders, and ask them to choose? Or would you go through a few hundred, pick out half-a-dozen of the best and get them to choose from those?
Not 10.000, of course, but easily between 10 at 25.
Then you are adopting the philosophy of "good enough will do" because somewhere among the other 9,990 there may be hidden something that the end user would think was an absolute gem. It's just not rational to spend hours and hours hunting for something that might not be there - and after you've trawled through hundreds of images and picked out 10 or 25 at the agency you normally use (say DT), why would you think "oh, I'd better go and check iS because there might be something there that's better"? And if you did think and do that, why wouldn't you then go on to do the same with SS, in case they have something even better? And what if it's really at DT, but not in the first 500 matches, somewhere in the next 4,000? Before you know it you are again wasting huge amounts of time looking for something that may not - quite probably doesn't - exist.
You dind't understand. These 10-25 come for a selection previously made (often) by me. And not always you get many results when the requirements are specific. Obviously, ypou can always miss something, everytime and everywhere, but thas was not my point.
379
« on: May 09, 2012, 16:25 »
Some con man really liked your shots, it's obvious.
380
« on: May 09, 2012, 16:24 »
I don't quite understand this philosophy of "someting similar and cheaper will do". At least at the book publishing industry, my experience is that presented with several alternatives for a print book cover, the client (the editor, and often the author) want what they think it is the best image possible, and from plain indepedent to Vetta, let's say for (5$ to 120$ or so) they don't doubt a moment to choose what they think more adequate, regardless of the price. By the way, some of them tend to infer that high price adds value to the image ("if it's more expensive it should be better"). Of course, this is not necessarily true, but it's human nature too.
The point is that buyers will generally not be "presented with several alternatives" at different sites, they will be using one site and will choose what they think is the best among the images they see there. Would you present 10,000 different pictures to a client, in three or four different binders, and ask them to choose? Or would you go through a few hundred, pick out half-a-dozen of the best and get them to choose from those?
Not 10.000, of course, but easily between 10 at 25.
381
« on: May 09, 2012, 16:10 »
I don't quite understand this philosophy of "someting similar and cheaper will do". At least at the book publishing industry, my experience is that presented with several alternatives for a print book cover, the client (the editor, and often the author) want what they think it is the best image possible, and from plain indepedent to Vetta, let's say for (5$ to 120$ or so) they don't doubt a moment to choose what they think more adequate, regardless of the price. By the way, some of them tend to infer that high price adds value to the image ("if it's more expensive it should be better"). Of course, this is not necessarily true, but it's human nature too.
382
« on: May 09, 2012, 14:06 »
So if every image you could possibly want is already on SS I guess the game is over for all of us. I don't think it is though and new, better, or different content will be produced, some by exclusives. I just did a quick search on SS of some of the more unique travel locations I've been to and a few places had no images on SS.
Yep __ pretty much. All iStock will achieve with their incessant price increases is to accelerate the end game.
'Unique travel locations' are usually more suitable as RM than microstock.
What accelerates the end of the game is the race to the bottom that began with all te agencies (and yes, this includes Thinkstock) entering the subscription wars. Selling a these prices mean, for the client, that the cost of the photos in the frame of the budget of a whole project is nil, nothing, rien de rien, nichts,nada, niente. And of course, the spoiled (spoiled by us) customer, nowadays, is not ready to accept the kind of quality of five, seven years ago in change of these nil prices (that are the same of five seven years ago). Prices like the ones at istock make this cost a real, but very minor cost... but if costumers can reduce this to zero, why not? They would pay happily more if prices very higher at all the big agencies. There's a big scope between these zero prices and good steal prices. An yes, 30-40 cents can add up to something if the file sells many times. But the fuse of the bomb is ablaze from years ago. This bomb is called dilution, and, for what I read about sales at the big subs sites, it is probably already beginning to reach its critical mass. What will be left in one-two years at subs sites? One, two, maybe ten sales for a lucky file. Back to shot our dish of mashed potatoes before eating it cold. There won't be money for more. That's it, out of business everybody.
383
« on: May 09, 2012, 13:24 »
So if the aim of an exclusive collection is to attract more buyers, the more buyers an agency attracts because of these images, the less attractive it becomes for buyers as more and more are buying the same images. I've never understood the concept of exclusivity in microstock. Until now shutterstock have thought the same, yet they have tons of buyers and I'm sure many of them are now former istock buyers. I'd argue that buyers can find really decent images from non-exclusive material, enough to justify buyers buying cheaper elsewhere. It's microstock, it's supposed to be cheap and for everyone, that's why it took off. Use an image today, use a different one tomorrow type of thing.
Again, exclusive images don't mean that they won't be bought many times and they aren't advertised as such. Exclusive files mean they are only sold at IS (for the most part, jsnover. I guess it's more correct to say within Getty) and not offered at other sites like SS, FT, 123rf, etc.. Like I said before the other sites compete mainly on price because content is nearly the same, IS can compete on content and charge more.
That is true, but it isn't a very popular idea among independents. We all have our fantasies that help us to boost morale.
384
« on: May 09, 2012, 05:05 »
I'm still getting refunds yesterday and today... with the same amount mentioned above.
Nobody else affected???
Not at all. I have a refund now and then, on maybe 1 per thousand of my sales.
385
« on: May 07, 2012, 13:17 »
Quality always wins. I agree that the less photos in a shooting, the better sales. But here we are not talking of an artsy quality but of an specific and very different "stock quality" that most of us should be able to indentify at first sight. "Surprises" with "bad" photos that shouldn't sell but sell are every day more scarce, and most of them in starved feed niches.
386
« on: April 30, 2012, 14:17 »
Branson is right that the long term solution to piracy is offering better ways to buy.
This really is the only solution. Steve Jobs proved it with iTunes.
There will always be privacy. Copyright law enforcement should be enforced, but it's like the lock on your front door. It keeps honest people honest, but people who want to break in and steal from you can still easily do so.
Yes, but people who breaks, if caugth, got prosecuted and probably, to jail.
387
« on: April 27, 2012, 08:26 »
That these stripes are forbbiden is in the ABC of the stock royalty free industry. Everybody should know these kind of things before beggining to send photos.
388
« on: April 25, 2012, 07:25 »
Funny this? all reports here by same forum members about increased revenues from E+, etc, etc, etc. When I converse with some of my friends, Diamond members, one even a black Diamond member and I am talking about Exclusives here. Theyre all agreeing, revenues are down, way down! in spite of E+. The only thing going seems to be Vettas.
Well, I'm having a noticeable increase in E+, but not in Vettas or Agency. Actually, Vetta and Agency are about 10% less than last year.
389
« on: April 24, 2012, 04:33 »
In same way, they can. They are showing the clients the content that they won't see at another microsites, not the same that maybe they have already seen when searching before elsewhere.
... and that's why sales at IS are probably down something like 30% over the year and equally up at SS where the results of their default search order is entirely buyer driven. When all images are priced the same and all contributors are treated equally the agency has no incentive to artificially screw with the search results. One day IS will learn this. Of course by then it will be too late for them.
Don't agree at all. First, at least my sales aren't down 30% or even near 30%; second, I think it's obvius, that are price increases, much more than any other factor, what slows the sales. I think istock is keeping the customers which are ready to pay more (and that's a smaller group); and that would explain as well the fact that E+ (at least in my portfolio) is selling much better than past years (and in bigger sizes)
390
« on: April 23, 2012, 16:05 »
But what they are attempting to do, is what they stated. Make the best match, client driven. ANd when we look, it's going to be different. "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE LITTLE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!" LOL
They can't boost exclusives up the search order (which they do) and supposedly make the best match 'client driven'. There are bound to be massive conflicts between those two ideals. We know they also heavily promote new images too. That's at least 2 huge influencing factors that interfere with their 'client driven' manifesto. Basically the client gets to see what they want ... provided it is new and/or exclusive.
In same way, they can. They are showing the clients the content that they won't see at another microsites, not the same that maybe they have already seen when searching before elsewhere.
391
« on: April 20, 2012, 16:32 »
I have been contacted in the past about a certain model, and I passed the mail onto them. What happens after that....?
Terrible things beyond our scariest nightmares, no doubt. More seriously, if I'm contacted about a model, I call the model, give him/her the data of the interested people, and it is up to her/him what to do from here.
392
« on: April 20, 2012, 12:34 »
I calculated the earnings per image per month from each of the main sites last year, and tracked it by quarter. Not a lot of work if you already have the data, but this is the table that summarizes the results.
I've no idea if these are good, bad or indifferent - they simply are stats from my own images on the stock sites I submit to.
The full discussion is here: http://www.backyardsilver.com/2011/12/earnings-per-image-what-can-you-make-from-each-photo/
Steve
That's very useful information, and the reason why, malgr tout, istock exclusiveness is still attractive for me, as mi Return per Image/Month is noticeably higher than the sum of all your averages at different sites. I'm also seeing an increase in my RPD; the loss of sales seems bigger in small sizes, while L to XXXL stands and gain in percentage. Light increase in E+ prizes can have a role too.
393
« on: April 19, 2012, 12:58 »
Answering to your question: yes, it degrades oneself as a photographer. It brings you back to the amateur field.
394
« on: April 13, 2012, 08:58 »
With tens of thousands of images inspected weekly it's normal than now and then one fells in the wrong side (approved, accepted). A 100% accuracy would be anormal, in these circumstances.
395
« on: April 12, 2012, 05:41 »
The problem is that deprived of fake smiles, lighting, setting etc, some are completely lost and void of ideas.
396
« on: April 11, 2012, 13:27 »
Now. We have all been crowdsoursed with our dlsr and "empty your harddisk".
... and we have put a lot of photographers out of business.
not because of our talent, but because of technology.
Boys and girls... you might be put out of business now.
Its called globalisation and we are being eaten.
Maybe you. Not me, certainly, until the moment.
397
« on: April 08, 2012, 16:28 »
He has great images in his port. He has more than 11.000 images. Maybe he could select a little more, but that's all. On the other hand, what is the problem accepting images made with a cellphone? If they make the technical, artistic and commercial standards, why not? Certainy, with a cellphone you will get only 1 out of 50 or one out of 100, to meet the tecnichals (and that just shooting in ideal light conditions and problaby reducing to small sizes), while with a DSLR you gan get 80 out of 100. But that's the protographer's, not the client's problem.
398
« on: March 19, 2012, 14:40 »
I checked the site, but I can't say I like the concept!
They let designers work hard on designing a logo, but only the one selected gets paid.
Contests are great for students who like to show off their skills and who like the practice and motivation. But for professionals who are trying to make a living, this is slavery.
completely agree
399
« on: March 19, 2012, 12:02 »
How much is it going to cost to administer this? They're trying to get something similar in the UK and the ISP's have spent a lot fighting it in the courts.
If it did work, people would go back to swapping pirated CD's, DVD's etc. offline. I would prefer a system where people that create popular content are paid to upload to the internet, given that it's inevitably going to be copied and shared illegally by someone.
Trading off offline is very limited and, although being a problem, would be a minor one.
400
« on: March 16, 2012, 13:13 »
Here's another way to look at it.
I haven't bought antivirus software in probably 10 years. Why should I? There are dozens of free ones that are good enough. I'm guessing there are millions, or maybe even tens of millions of people, who feel the same way. If there were no free options my choice would be pay, or go without antivirus software. If antivirus was no longer free a good percentage of those people would buy it. Some won't, but using 10 million new sales as an example, multiplied by $30 for the software, equals $300 million. That $300 million would be divided up among all the software companies.
The same thing applies to us. If it wasn't free people would need to pay, or do without. And that new money would get divided up among us. Free takes away from all of us.
Or they would pirate the software and people would download it illegally. Same goes for images. Free isn't something some people will do without. If it isn't given, they'll take it.
What? So because people steal stuff we should offer it for free? Maybe we should start stealing cameras from the local electronic stores and maybe they'll start offering them for free. Photoshop gets pirated and they're still charging for it the last time I looked. Why is photography the constant target of free entitlement?
Has there ever been a point you didn't miss? I was not saying it was OK simply pointing out the enormous flaw in your argument. To suggest if people can't get it free they would see no alternative but to buy it is ludicrous. Digital cameras are everywhere. Anyone can take photos and even if most of it is crap by your standards as you said yourself, many people don't care. Good enough is good enough. Deal with the fact that there will always be people looking to get freebies.
I'll bet real money you're going to miss that point too. Go ahead get even more upset, I'm done with you.
To think that everyone with a camera can do easily decent (just decent, not great) stock photos is very candid. But then again, that's what I used to think before getting in microstock. Yes, amateurs can get a decent, let's say, landscape photo by chance, but not much more.
The problem is that some of these free photos at SFI o what's its name, are decent. I'll keep that in mind as a costumer, for projects without budget, but I'll go on buying at istock when needing professional stuff.
Did I say that? Did I use the English word for decent? I thought I used the word crap. What language am I communicating in? Hello. That seems like English to me. How is it so many people completely miss the point? I don't know why I bother. You say something, some newton takes it the wrong way and there's a fight. nice website.
Well, you were implying that people wouldn't care using crap instead of decent images. Sorry if I didn't meet your standards, professor.
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 44
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
