|
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 - topol
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20
376
« on: August 05, 2013, 15:58 »
good
377
« on: August 01, 2013, 19:07 »
....as confirmed by Yuri it seems SS has no plans to raise our fees or to launch a new expensive product line...
They already launched a new expensive product line....
378
« on: August 01, 2013, 10:37 »
I really don't get why these suspicious questions about Symbiostock keep coming up. Leo is about the most accessible person around, always easy to reach, answer questions, etc.
Amarofil just joined the forums today, so they might be totally unaware of Symbiostock and its development.
..and this brand new nick's first thing to do was to jump on symbiostock...
379
« on: August 01, 2013, 06:43 »
dude, the creator of syombiostock is on here answering any question almost every single day...
380
« on: July 31, 2013, 16:43 »
I think these companies have too much to risk to cheat us. If a company were doing this, it's not something they could keep quiet for very long. It would be discovered somehow, through experiments like what the SAA was doing, or through an employee who blows the whistle. It would take too many people being in the know to pull this off, programmers, accountants, too many ways for a leak to happen.
And if a company were discovered to be cheating artists, they'd be dead in the water. No one would send their work there anymore.
Seems like too much of a risk to take to save a few bucks (or cents).
You are bit optimistic. The bigger the volume the easier it they can get away with it, and if you do catch them not reporting some sale, they can just claim it was a hickup, what you gonna do?
381
« on: July 31, 2013, 13:48 »
Shutterstock is very good...................... for me to poop on!!!
382
« on: July 31, 2013, 04:19 »
Yuri got outcompeted, so he blamed it on the business model and escaped into a special deal. The macro agencies basically did / doing the same thing, didn't help them either.
383
« on: July 29, 2013, 12:38 »
Typical, always defending IS, it is never their fault, is it?
I can't tell what's going on in the OP, it's in German and doesn't clearly link to the images or TOS or anything I can make out. Sean's links are different and don't look so bad, they are different than the google deal.
You can see everything in the pictures I attached. Its pretty simple: You search for a photo for example "baby" and you get a selection of Istock photos for free use on your personal or commerical website.
Without having access to it, I can't tell if those files are Istock or Getty. Do they come from certain contributors or from all files? Is there a TOS page?
Just read my post, or is the web access down at your place? (addition I also found one of my pictures, and Im exclusive)
Problem with this deal: The TOS Page is hard to find or non existing ...
Are you some kind of an exiled village idiot of Istock?  ... or maybe you just find pleasure in humiliating yourself.
I guess you are talking to me, even though you are replying to someone else. I'm not sure I've insulted anyone here, sorry for asking questions I guess it's better to just assume what we want to hear rather than get the truth. I'd say that attitude is more befitting of the village idiot but what do I know?
well, you did recognize yourself despite the 'wrong' quoting didn't, you? Thanks dude, this worked like a charm.
384
« on: July 29, 2013, 12:22 »
Typical, always defending IS, it is never their fault, is it?
I can't tell what's going on in the OP, it's in German and doesn't clearly link to the images or TOS or anything I can make out. Sean's links are different and don't look so bad, they are different than the google deal.
You can see everything in the pictures I attached. Its pretty simple: You search for a photo for example "baby" and you get a selection of Istock photos for free use on your personal or commerical website.
Without having access to it, I can't tell if those files are Istock or Getty. Do they come from certain contributors or from all files? Is there a TOS page?
Just read my post, or is the web access down at your place? (addition I also found one of my pictures, and Im exclusive)
Problem with this deal: The TOS Page is hard to find or non existing ...
Are you some kind of an exiled village idiot of Istock? ... or maybe you just find pleasure in humiliating yourself.
385
« on: July 29, 2013, 02:53 »
I fully understand if agencies want to clear out old content that hasn't sold for years. Or hasn't had a sale in 18 months.
But 3 times every 6 months?
Doesn't this hurt their own revenue, especially on the seasonal images?
Anyway, I am on the lowest rank and not yet affected. I will continue to upload to Fotolia, but this means that I have to think much more carefully about the timing of files.
I guess the pressure from istock and the new half price policy is having a very drastic effect although it has only been marketed for 2 weeks.
Images idling there is not a price issue. They simply suck at selling images, the site has way too low traffic for it's volume of stock.
386
« on: July 28, 2013, 08:07 »
cobalt is a fine example, very misguided. i would think it would make more sense to say "the disruption of the stock industry came from the combination of microstock + internet + acceptance of cheap DSLR cameras."
Very true. It was almost as bad as the disruption of the transport industry that was caused by the introduction of the infernal combustion engine. Now a bunch of so-called "drivers" are transporting people in motorised carriages and they scarcely know how to harness a pony to a trap!
your analogy is very cute. but what does comparing a 4X5 bellows camera have to do with shooting with an DSLR? or are you one of those chaps who can only drive an automatic? 
I knew it didn't work perfectly but I liked it so I wrote it anyway. But the whole thing was triggered by the emergence of the digital era, with cheap computers, cheap dSLRs and the explosion in popularity of the Internet after Windows 95 came out.
The thing that pulled all the potential together was the Digital Rebel, which came out in 03 and was a massive hit. I bought one for hobby purposes as my last camera, the Pentax ME Super that I bought in about 1982, was getting a bit battered. I messed around with the Rebel for about six months before stumbling on the existence of iStock and signing up. The rebel, or EOS300D as mine was, was the leading microstock camera of 2004, which is the year that saw iS really start to take off and the effective launch of SS, DT and Canstock.
Frictionless digital ecnomy made it, virtual copies with almost expense. No cheap dslr needed for that, it distributes copies from a hassy just a as well  If there were no cheap dslrs the only consequence to micro sites would be having less junk files of pigeons, backyard dogs, and awfully lit "portrait professional" portraits. The main core that makes up the sales would be the same.
387
« on: July 28, 2013, 07:41 »
My theory is that there is a global (world wide) economic crisis
So how come my sales on SS were growing, altho I didn't upload for months. When I started uploading gaain recently, they grew even more.
Because there is always one exception to confirm the rule
How do you know it's an exception
388
« on: July 28, 2013, 04:00 »
My theory is that there is a global (world wide) economic crisis
So how come my sales on SS were growing, altho I didn't upload for months. When I started uploading gaain recently, they grew even more.
389
« on: July 28, 2013, 03:58 »
A relatively large number of contributors on SS have noted their sales have been down for the better part of this year. Many theories have been advanced for this, such as search engine bugs, a massive influx of new contributors (mostly from IS) and several other ideas. Here's another one that I gleaned from a financial publication.
In the July 22 issue of Barron's, page M5, there an interesting article regarding Shutterstock's performance on the stock market. I'll not go over the entire article; however, I will quote the section I found of interest. "However, sales and marketing expenses fell in the first quarter of 2013, even though they've been rising sharply, an average of 60% in the past three years. The company noted that advertising will increase for the remainder of 2013 and beyond."
It appears this may have been done as an accounting strategy in order to allow the appearance of income growth during this period. Barron's goes on to say "If sales and marketing had grown at their customary pace or even half the annual average, little or no first-quarter growth would have occurred." This would have put a damper on the rapid rise of Shutterstock's (SSTK) growth in the market.
I think most would agree that if you don't have a strong sales and marketing strategy, and the financing to execute it, in today's competitive environment your overall sales are going to suffer. They did say that they were going to increase advertising for the balance of 2013 and beyond. This may be at least part of the reason contributors (myself included) have noticed the beginnings of an uptick in sales over the past couple of weeks. Hopefully that will continue. It will be interesting to see just what the sales and marketing numbers were for the second quarter when SS issues their next report in August.
If you take this from the SS forum.... just forget it... : )))
390
« on: July 28, 2013, 03:38 »
...The disruption of microstock came from the combination of internet + cheap DSLR, i.e. the entrance barrier in equipment cost became low and the customers can be reached worldwide directly with a few mouseklicks....
That's a complete misunderstanding, the bigger names that actually made micro a serious competitor aren't using cheap dlsr's, they use high end equipment,
That's a misreading or misunderstanding of cobalt's link. She was saying that micro started based on many people buying basic dSLRs. I don't think many established stock photographers rushed into micro, though possibly a few did.
Nope, that's the start not the disruption / big business. If it got stuck there most of you wouldn't even know about it. The business that reached disruptive leve wasn't building on cheap equip. I came to micro from hobby leve a bit late, and I had to buy new everything.
391
« on: July 28, 2013, 03:30 »
Jon is bit of a mathematician, analitical mind. I have a close firend like that also working at a really large web corp, serious math guy, they are the people you need if you want to run a large system optimally. Jon figured out neat price / volume numbers for the packages buliding on the 'average customer behaviour', mostly the minor shortcomings of human nature: forgetfulness, poor judgment on how much resources they really need and likely need, how attracted they are to package numbers that sound like a bargain but they never actually use it up, how you can more easily get people to pay a lot if the business runs in small incements (most people simply can't count)... etcetc
392
« on: July 27, 2013, 09:50 »
"That's a complete misunderstanding, the bigger names that actually made micro a serious competitor aren't using cheap dlsr's, they use high end equipment, many of them have been pro photographers who already had top-notch gear."
I bought a 6mp Rebel to start shooting for iStock in 2004.
..and what have you been using for years now?
393
« on: July 27, 2013, 09:03 »
...The disruption of microstock came from the combination of internet + cheap DSLR, i.e. the entrance barrier in equipment cost became low and the customers can be reached worldwide directly with a few mouseklicks....
That's a complete misunderstanding, the bigger names that actually made micro a serious competitor aren't using cheap dlsr's, they use high end equipment, many of them have been pro photographers who already had top-notch gear. It's so untrue, that sctually microstock started to burden photographers with the highest technical requirements ever, by far. The point that microstock made is that unless the competition starts eating your pie, selling at low prices doesn't reduce your income because the lower the price the huger and huger the customer base gets. Before the tiny minded start schreeching: yes sooner or later the competition will try, and probably will be eating your pie in an any open market. Be first , be smart, or cheat.
394
« on: July 27, 2013, 08:44 »
i would never contribute to SS. i value my work far too much to sell it for such a pittance.
pittance in my dictionary is having 12.2$ at iStock this month (not even half day at SS)
i guess we have two different dictionaries, $12.20 is a couple of dollars more than my average royalty per download at IS by a few bucks ($3-$4). my last small S+ paid $11.00 so there is no way in hell i will sell that image 28 times at SS at XXXL size to make up the difference. even a small image on the main collection pays around $1.50, that would still mean i would have to sell it on SS 3-4 times. no thanks.
IStock pays the lowest of low comissions, 7-9 cents. Also he obviously meant having a fraction of his SS income on IS with same / similar port.
395
« on: July 26, 2013, 12:06 »
he has no reason to ensure everyone here makes 70% on their work, i have never seen a rate as such in the stock industry - ever. until microstock came along and your ilk, 40% - 50% royalty rate was normal.
Alamy paid 70% in the past. They've lowered our commission to 65, 60 and now 50%. Yet they never used the sustainability argument to do it. According to them they've used the extra income to fund new projects and market expansion. Do I agree with it? No, But at least they are using the money to expand the business, so they say.
iStock takes +80% because to have less is "unsustainable" to the business!!! Really? Others can manage a business and profit millions with 50 to 70% paid to contributors and iStock cannot keep the boat afloat with 80%, so they had to grab 85% in some cases?!!!
Is this the same iStock that has been ripping us off that Yuri praises now in this post and his site? Or is there another iStock I missed the announcement?
As I said before, this is just another post, in the line of many others, that Yuri uses to promote himself and his business trying to appear as our "buddy" but with quite concrete and financial benefits for him on the backstage.
And great for him!
But it's just pathetic and insulting that he's promoting one of the most, if not the most disgusting agency of all. Not to mention incompetent!
Istock has to feed a big failing professional company that was bought and buys on leverage, that's why. What do you think 'private equity' is? It's just the new label for 'leveraged buyout firm', after that genre became severely embarrassing to associate with.
396
« on: July 26, 2013, 12:00 »
Such a shame that 95% of this thread was wasted on bickering, quibbling and sniping. Yuri offered an opportunity for debate and it was wasted.
Regarding mobile phones, as I said in an earlier thread 'wake up and smell the coffee'.
And honestly, why on earth question Yuri's qualification and judgement of smart phone potential. Do you think he doesn't understand what competing with a DSLR requires?
Very True. I'm still here, but I have to focus on good questions and not "personal" attacks on my persona.
Actually you avoided a number of worthwhile but risque questions and diverted to a 'divorce with children' type sneering with that baldrickswahetever nick...
397
« on: July 26, 2013, 05:16 »
Scoopshot is a startup for photos on demand. It means that smb. needs an image(s) and all stupid (sorry) persons over the world or some location trying to create image on request. A contributor will get 2, 5 USD. Scoopshot will get an another 2, 5 USD.
Now let`s think. How this 2,5 dollars are sustainable. Transport to asked-demanded location needs some expenses too.
It is not traditional microstock at this moment. It is not selling a volume. Yes, an agency owners will receive some money. And Yuri is on the side of owners.
Maybe Scoopshot owners trying to sell this startup after one year to Getty. With big profit. This is a question.
Maybe an owners turn a Scoopshoot into camera phone images stock agency too. But there is a Foap already.
Mobile phone camere never will catch a quality of dslr or even a good pocket camera. More glass and bigger sensor is a key for technical quality. Apps and filters helps a lot, but cameraphone is ok in good light. In editorial photo business a light conditions are very often bad.
Sorry about my English.
http://www.jaaknilson.ee
Just the calories you burn thinking about it cost more than 2,5$
398
« on: July 26, 2013, 04:35 »
... but let's face it - crowd includes many idiots.
'bout 95%
399
« on: July 26, 2013, 01:34 »
sort of like 'over clocking' the cpu's in the old days and telling folks that you have a 1 GHz when your chip is a 550 MHz
If you overclocked it, it really was 1 Ghz, buddy.
400
« on: July 26, 2013, 01:19 »
what the * guys, most of you sound like a bunch of angry trolls.
i fully agree with Yuri moving to Getty, 100% and that should be the end of the story and the message to all newbies and old stockers : microstock is a ripoff and pros should better not deal with croo-ks.
as for the super duper mirrorless sensors with glued prime lens that will feature in new high-end phones, gimme a break, i see some new sample images from the latest nokia and it suc-ks even in daytime, a bad noisy 41MP image will look a bit better when downsized to 12MP but that's the very best scenario you can expect !
As opposed to getty, a nice friendly and fair company loved so dearly by photographers
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
