|
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 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 44
401
« on: March 16, 2012, 12:56 »
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.
402
« on: March 13, 2012, 09:50 »
I have some old crappy photos from years back, when I began, that I don't delete just because the concept (and sometimes the exact photo) have been copied, one, two, ten times. Now and then I reshoot these concepts with better technique and equipmment, but I think that keeping the old versions can help me if some of the shameless copycats accuses me of copying what they copied from me.
On the other hand, at Istockphoto, at least in the past, some copycated images were deleted, but not entire portfolios, except in the case of serial copycaters.
403
« on: March 11, 2012, 08:16 »
anyone knows?
yes, it is a "free", but it has mine anyway...
as i know, in DT, for example, even "free" photos shown in your PF.
PS it is any advantage from free photos in FT?
Yes, there are advantages for free photos.
1. Buyers don't have to pay for them.
2. The site gets more traffic from people looking for free photos, which may help the site, but not as much as it helps people looking for free photos.
I've used the free sections of this and others sites when working pro-bono, but never bougth a single one from them. If I need images, I use istock, because I'm exclusive there, and I can change credits.
404
« on: March 09, 2012, 09:36 »
nobody better submit any photos of goldfish. Search on istock and you'll see the biggest example of copying in the history of microstock.
An tehere are millions oh photos of people too. Subject is irrelevant, is perfectly possible generating ypour own concept with goldfish.
405
« on: March 05, 2012, 11:24 »
In my personal case after 3 months of independence i started to earn two times more. in march i expect at least +20% more revenue than the last month. i new from the beginning that for a period of time i will earn less than when i was exclusive.
now SS is making 60% of all my microstock earnings with many dozens of dls/day
Yes, but how many images do you have at SS and how many do you have left at istock? Your portfolio there appears to be empty.)
406
« on: February 29, 2012, 18:51 »
"Quid pro quo"... if anonymous contributors can't see the charts, their data and statistics (even without the names) shouldn't be shown too to the other contributors.
407
« on: February 28, 2012, 15:10 »
Obviously, lagereek must be a doctor... or a spin doctor, at the very least.
408
« on: February 23, 2012, 16:19 »
I suppose they would post them tomorrow or during the week end. The Vetta script ran yesterday (good month) and the stockexpert one too, so the PP is the only left.
409
« on: February 20, 2012, 10:23 »
In 2006 IS sold at 1/2/3 ... etc dollars and you got 0,20,040 or 0,60 if you were indie, double for diamond exclusives.
410
« on: February 16, 2012, 14:11 »
Never hit me until just now that the 5 image pack is crazy expensive. The whole pack thing looks very reminiscent of the SS plans, except the pricing of that 5 image pack, which at TS costs twice as much.
Double? I see the prices in euros, and, at least in European maths, 49 euros has never been the double of 39 euros.
411
« on: February 14, 2012, 06:11 »
Should istock cut their prices, others would do it next day.
412
« on: February 10, 2012, 11:55 »
The nature of the image dictates its possible uses. If you picture a kid crying, or sad, or in a wheelchair, or with a black eye, you know what you can expect. A kid laughing has almost zero possibilities of being used in questionable ways. I'm sure AIDS orphans laugh now and then, but not in ads.
413
« on: February 08, 2012, 12:18 »
So how is February going for everyone? Excellent sales in January are continuing into February in my case. I have noticed its mainly new files that are selling.
Certainly it could be better, but not bad.
414
« on: January 24, 2012, 09:07 »
If they had wanted go in the direction of lowering comissions, they had a great opportunty just some weeks ago. It would have been enough to not lower heavily the RC targets. Many exlusives (an no exc) would have sunk to inferior levels. Instead, they decided to lower RC targets and in my opinion, they did that because they didn't want to lose exclusives and other contributors.
415
« on: January 23, 2012, 15:04 »
On top of the redundancies it's not encouraging to see that - far as I can tell from www.istockphoto.com/istock_careers - there are no open positions at any level or skillset at the company.
That's because you are looking in the wrong place. This is now Getty, not iStock. Check here and you'll see a boatload of job openings for Seattle along with many others sprinkled around the world.
http://www.gettyimagesjobs.com/
Good point Jami. But wouldn't you think they'd offer some of those Getty jobs to Istock people rather than just laying them off? Seems odd, but then I don't claim to understand the workings of the corporate mindset...
I suppose it depends on the real reason behind the layoffs. Actually, we don't know.
416
« on: January 20, 2012, 20:52 »
"Everyone was celebrating". Never saw this thread. I suppose it is futile to ask for a link.
Since I didn't see the thread either, all I can do is show you Peter's post, which is on page one of this thread.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/layoffs-at-istock-today/msg239116/#msg239116
And I stand corrected. He said "some," not "everyone."
Honestly I cannot remember ever hearing or reading someonecheering stockexperts closure on the istock forums. Not saying it didnt happen, but I genuinly dont remember it. It also doesnt make a lot of sense - didnt stockexpert promote istock exclusive images on the top of the site for a while? At least i remember seeing my easter eggs there and had the impression it was good for them.
But since it must have been terrible for him, I am sure he knows what he saw. Something like that you dont forget.
Am I mistaken? Or this Peter and his partners sold stockxpert to Jupiter and then Jupiter sold to Getty?
417
« on: January 20, 2012, 20:22 »
So, I imagine you vomiting your guts for a full week when Steve Jobs died an tens of thousands os posts about him were posted in public forums.
Being as Jobs was actually dead it was probably a little tricky to send him a PM. It is also beyond question that Jobs was a truly remarkable man, known throughout the world and all of us have benefited from how he 'changed the World', even if you never bought any of his products.
Not sure I fully understand your comparison with Jobs and a French-Canadian beardie who looked at digital images for a living.
Not. But now I understad the kind of person you are.
418
« on: January 20, 2012, 20:13 »
"Everyone was celebrating". Never saw this thread. I suppose it is futile to ask for a link.
419
« on: January 20, 2012, 19:57 »
So, I imagine you vomiting your guts for a full week when Steve Jobs died an tens of thousands os posts about him were posted in public forums.
420
« on: January 20, 2012, 19:44 »
Some talk of "adoration" because they like to make appear istock exclusives as imbecilles. A pity to have such a dirty mind. It's not adoration, it is mostly (and plainly) friendship and gratitude. After years of working and interacting with someone, it is easy to tell the good and competent person from the jerk. Unless yourself are a jerk, that's another matter.
421
« on: January 20, 2012, 10:18 »
No way, 20, 25 or whatever. I doubt the do do that. WIthout exclusives they would have the same content that any other site, just more expensive. And, should they do that (wich I don't believe) itw ould be the moment for a competitor to launch a strong exclusive program. Or for a new site all exclusive site.
422
« on: January 19, 2012, 15:52 »
JJRD lay off is really bad news. Istockphoto owes much to him. Worst of all: JJRD is a photographer and an artist; I won't be surprised if his replacement heading the content department is a marketing specialist, a seller. It has happened often lately in the whole culture industry and when, with time, these kind of changess backfire often is too late to ammend it.
423
« on: January 18, 2012, 14:28 »
Yeah, pretty much the entire interwebz is against it.
Te entire internet? I've been surfing al the day and I've not found any closed-protesting pages. I read that about 10.000 pages have closed in protest ... 10.000? there are bilions of pages and blogs in the internet... The most famous protester seems to be Wikipedia. Maybe they wish to impose their model? One model where contributors get nothing, while wikipedia ask constantly for money to users... and this money goes to wikipedia, but never goes to contributors: content is free and must be done for free. Talk about giving ideas to microstock business. And maybe Wikipedia is an "org", but for what I'v seen and read, Jimmy Wales seems to be a very rich man.
424
« on: January 18, 2012, 12:45 »
Istock gains more with exclusive files, because are more expensive and that compensates the comission difference.
425
« on: January 11, 2012, 19:59 »
It is something called a "concept", if you know what it is. While "person" may be a stretch, "homeless" fits 100%.
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 44
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
