|
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 - willie
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 28
401
« on: July 29, 2009, 20:24 »
I have a port with istock and it is almost same as StockXpert!
But we still lose.. What's so hard to understand? If those customers went to StockXpert instead of IS we would get %50. They are clever guys, and they are certainly good at maths.
This is the most important reason! Otherwise why would they do it? StockXpert belongs to them as well. But they know StockXpert pays us %50 and if the traffic goes to IS then we get %20 and getty gets %80. As simple as that!
There are only 2 reasons for this move:
1- They want to pay us %20 instead of %50
2- They want to make exclusives happy by directing more traffic towards them!
And yes, We lose! This is not arguable!
Same here, almost an identical port.... WTH? I'm gonna miss StockXpert, always been a steady payout..... I dont know how many times (probably like most of you) I'll sell the same flippin pix on IS and StockXpert the same day.
Soooooo let me think about this Einsteinian logic.....that means... ah.... ah.....there are plenty of buyers out there that WERE buying the image at a higher rate and not caring too much about it. That's why I dont understand the business sense in it. If somebody wants to pay Rolls Royce prices when they can buy at a Chevy cost...
WHY TAKE THAT AWAY FROM THEM? It's still going in your (Getty's) wallet?  =tom
Some of you may have been in the business during the previous stock market (ie the real thing, not this godforsaken micro - stock thing) crash. With re-structuring, there is always a business plan before the takeover. Getty did not just happen to buy StockXpert and IS. You don't just takeover a business to kill them. You take over the business to control prices. It's been done many times before micro stock. Then when the business strategy is implanted and successful, you sell the same company (companies) for a profit to some joker who believes they too can be as successful with your takeover business. Greed is a prime mover to all this. And we know there is also someone who is greedy enough to fall for it. We only need to look no further then the man in the mirror 
403
« on: July 29, 2009, 19:55 »
I checked and my entire Fotolia portfolio is there, even the pictures that got accepted yesterday. I guess they are a selling partner and they probably mean they are not endorsed by Fotolia because they are an independant entity, not a Fotolia sub-company.
I'm hearing ya, Talanis. But that sounds to me like a father who is giving the local 25 year old hoodlum the go ahead to date his 16 year old virgin daughter...
okay, I exaggerate a bit but not too much. LOL =tom
Sorry for going off so much tonite across the board...must be the chemo hitting the brain today!
The loophole to all these "screwing around" is that there is no GLOBAL JURISDICTION on the www. If anything, few fraud cases get to be successful in gaining recourses , and the criminal tried and charged. Closer to home, has anyone followed the recent case with the group of photographers who took Getty to court? Not a peep. Need we say more?
404
« on: July 29, 2009, 18:42 »
But going more emotive  and with the magic wand for the big 6 I'd
keep DT
definetly put in zymm
probably cutcaster for reasons already given, (think I to start submitting there)
Featurepics
sad thats pretty much it on the emotion side I'm pretty indifferent either way to BigStock & 123rf so maybe throw them in
sorry , I went off topic before, I didn't vote either ,so here I make up. I like Phil's emotion side , with zymm, cutcaster, featurepics, and hey watderhell, let's throw in yay while we 're still dreaming (heh!heh! bad pun). canstock and scanstock, maybe, if either of them could pull themselves into getting something really effective. that's 6 new big 6. now, back to harsh reality... arghhhh, it's still a nightmare ... and getting worse!!! 
405
« on: July 29, 2009, 17:23 »
Hopefully there will be solution that will eliminate middle man. Google as search engine, some storage like Amazon or Windows Azure and payment system from PayPal or Amazon.
Yes. For Google, it's right there for the taking. Give us some standards for publishing and keywording our images so Google's crawler can find them, let us submit our URLs, then GoogleStock does the search, puts up the thumbnails (with a couple of paid ads on each page, of course) and we sell direct. That's what the "symantic web" is supposed to be all about - developing well-defined ways to publish content, searchable by standard methods.
OT, but still related... I suppose you both may be on to something. Eliminating the middle man would still enable buyers to pay the same price, and yet we contributors earn far more . Minus the cost of the private site, of course. It does , however, have to be user-friendly, as not all of us are IT wizkids. And it has to be safe. Like what happens in fraud purchases? Naturally the beauty will be NO REVIEWERS, and it's up to each of us to edit ourselves well. I am sure many will rejoice to see Atilla lose his/her job
406
« on: July 29, 2009, 16:48 »
This is interesting, with your tally so far at --- #1 tie : Cutcaster 3 Zymmetrical 3 #2 tie : Veer 2 Yaymicro 2 #3 tie : BigStock 1 Photoshelter (demise) 1 Mostphoto 1 (own site ) 1. It's pretty good for both John (CC) and Keith (Z). Which isn't too surprising, as these two people have been the most pro-active here. Hopefully there will be solution that will eliminate middle man. Google as search engine, some storage like Amazon or Windows Azure and payment system from PayPal or Amazon. The company will allow to download software, setup own server and register within their site (actually maybe multiple site like DNS servers).
mela, I am not sure if every one has the time to eliminate the middle man.
407
« on: July 29, 2009, 16:14 »
Awesome response Jsnover. Very informative. And to you too Pixelbytes. This is going better than I expected, esp. when you touched other related topics like the difference in keywording. There's a lot more to think about , even if one is not consider going exclusive. Keep them coming... please
408
« on: July 29, 2009, 15:49 »
409
« on: July 29, 2009, 14:11 »
not if you also have a port at IStock. it only means you will get more sales with your IStock port.
it's only for those who do not have a port with Istock .
then simply the thing to do is to start an Istock port.
(with but one problem. the limit to be a new Istocker. you won't be able to build as large a port as what you now have with StockXpert).
the writings are on the wall; or have been a long time ago.
either we move on , or give up.
I have a port with istock and it is almost same as StockXpert!
But we still lose.. What's so hard to understand? If those customers went to StockXpert instead of IS we would get %50. They are clever guys, and they are certainly good at maths.
This is the most important reason! Otherwise why would they do it? StockXpert belongs to them as well. But they know StockXpert pays us %50 and if the traffic goes to IS then we get %20 and getty gets %80. As simple as that!
There are only 2 reasons for this move:
1- They want to pay us %20 instead of %50
2- They want to make exclusives happy by directing more traffic towards them!
And yes, We lose! This is not arguable!
It's the nature of the beast. I stopped uploading there and watch them kind of like SnapVillage. I got some sales in both places but do not invest any time.
Price war and consolidation will cause weaker players to disapear. Survivers might have to rise prices just to heal the woulds but also because there will be no competition.
In meanwhile 10 wannabe site a day will pop up. They are not real threat to current ones and live on life support for years.
All this will happen at expense of contributors. Survivors might see better time in couple years from now.
Exactament. Nothing 's going to get better. No giant killers in any of those wannabe sites either. All big promises and no buyers.
410
« on: July 29, 2009, 12:41 »
just received an email from SXC announcing it
seems like another nail in the coffin
Appears that you are correct!
They are competing with themselves, in the same market. By directing all the buyers to one site, it will probably make for more IS growth. Consolidation of acquisitions.
This moves me closer to only two or three sites for my shite.
Yes, we keep thinking on our side. We forget Getty's own business objective. Getty has to appease the IStock exclusives , after they got them mad with their curve ball of subs disparity with Stockxpert. They don't give a hoot for Stockxpert. They have little vested interest. They can sell this loser anytime. Maybe to the next fella who sees microstock as the new freebie-geebie. They can make money simply on ads and traffic. And Istock? Well, they have the tier system and subs. You stay and choose which ones you prefer to contribute. All 's well for the exclusives. The independents? Well, we have to weigh the scales and go wherever we feel with which site is going to give us the best deal. Istock, with Vetta and subs, does not look so bad , at this moment. Just my tuppenny's worth of seeing where we are headed.
411
« on: July 29, 2009, 12:08 »
Looked at the 123RF landing page? "Images as low as 0.19$".
Fotolia : images from 14 cents.
Dreamstime: high-resolution stock images can reach as low as $0.20 each.
They are all playing the price competition game.
Wouldn't it be nice if we do find a site with a different sales pitch? Something like --- OUR PRICE IS HIGHER BECAUSE OUR IMAGES ARE BETTER ! However, I won't hold my breath for this to happen.
412
« on: July 29, 2009, 10:12 »
Hello all,
Enough has been published about the pros and cons of going exclusive. I don't need to hear anymore from those who are against. Neither do I need to be convinced from those who are happily stayed in exclusiveness.
The question I ask here is more on preparation and awareness.
What , in your experience , do I need to be ready BEFORE going exclusive.
Or , if I decided to get out of exclusive, what do I need to be guarded about.
As I said, this is for both sides. And please feel free to voice your experience.
I only want to know what to do. NOT what you feel whether I should or should not go exclusive.
Cheers. As always, lots of good people with expertise here. Appreciate it.
P.S.
CEOs (eg. Keith of Zymm, John of Cutcaster,etc) are welcome to write me as well, as it's good to know as much before jumping in.
413
« on: July 28, 2009, 10:12 »
Gannet77 Cheers, much appreciated for your information. I will copy paste to keep them.
414
« on: July 28, 2009, 09:07 »
One more question, though... and this is for the exclusives to answer.
If you are exclusive to Istock, can you still sell your own prints at the local gallery.
ie. as mentioned in the other thread. Entirely different portfolio that the ones you submit to Istock.
How restricted are you as an Exclusive?
415
« on: July 28, 2009, 09:04 »
Perseus asks "Why is there still some people going exclusive?"
Well, the answer is, they've considered the options and decided it suits them, at least at that time. It's not purely a monetary calculation; from what I've read posted by others, I would think you can normally expect to make more income by staying independent, at the cost of some extra time and effort, but maybe you'd prefer to put that effort into taking more pictures or just other aspects of your life or work. And remember that once you're exclusive, the upload limits are much higher and your iStock portfolio (and hopefully your income) can grow much more rapidly.
Certainly that's why I'm exclusive, and I would assume it's one of the reasons why some 43% of iStock contributors who are eligible have decided to be so as well. It's down to the individual and their circumstances, and each must make their own decision.
It's not final - if you're already an established independent it could be a costly mistake as the time and cost of re-establishing multiple portfolios might be considerable, but if you're still at the early stages you can give it a try and if you find it doesn't suit you can always drop it later.
You need someone who is exclusive to give their side of the story? Well, that's mine, but I'm only one of 4,312 (as of yesterday) and each has their own experience. No one forces them to be exclusive.
Cheers Gannet77 for providing me with the insight from the other side of the coin. Your opening paragraph more or less sums up the feeling I've been having lately. It's cool being indie but there is objectively an advantage to being exclusive . Sure, the general argument is that it's risky to put all the eggs in one basket, and that xxx site is going to screw you or whatnot. Well, the way I see it, everyone else is not doing any better in this sense. So the argument is moot. Being exclusive can reap rewards too, that indie have not discovered. Much like we treat our "special clients" in the business world. We all , in reality, have exclusives ie. at the bank, your network,etc.. and it does pay off a larger bonus being treated exclusively , in being given better discounts, better lending rates, etc. No one forces us to be exclusive. You are right. And being in an early stage of the game, yes, as pixelbytes, and you (Garnet77) say, give it a shot. I will, in time Cheers and regards.
416
« on: July 28, 2009, 08:50 »
I so agree, David.
To choose one or the other seems rather destructive to me.
One can still play both sides to their benefit.
The way I am planning is to take advantage of this current attractive niche market opportunity at this moment with gallery print sales. It also allows me to separate myself from micro and go with the artsy side of things .
Naturally, I make sure the gallery prints will never get into my micro portfolio, as that would make your buyers pretty irate when they find that your prints are going at sub prices as well.
There is no reason why a photographer cannot apply themselves to make generic images for micro, and at the same time still enjoy the gallery custom images market.
And if one goes better than expected, well, then you shift your attention and priority in that direction.
Furthermore, you free yourself from the stranglehold of micro and subs, and you're not going to be in a panic mode every single day wondering which site is going to pull stunt to do a * up your behind (to quote m@m, lol).
417
« on: July 27, 2009, 21:50 »
WOW! at the rate this is going, I'm seriously considering quitting stock photography and becoming a KY lubricant distributor, I have a feeling there's going to be a big demand for the product.
Boy, I'm glad I'm not a Fotolia contributor!
No kidding. 
418
« on: July 27, 2009, 20:34 »
In response to both above comments,
to be fair to Istock, such incidents are not just the premise of Istock. Lately, if you're with Dreamstime, you know the same thing happened recently with newly approved images.
Only that when it's Istock, there is usually more noise (no pun intended) made on this forum
Sorry Perseus, but there is no comparing the stability of DT to the instability of IS. Unfortunate that you are experiencing a sales drop of new images at DT, but overall sales there are still a lot more predictable than on IS.
And stability is about sales, but also about more than sales. Site outages and slowdowns, buggy infrastructure, "great new programs" that turn out to have unintended bad consequences for many people, etc. seem to have become normal operations for IS.
If your portfolio is small you don't have anything to lose. Try exclusivity at istock and see for yourself if you like it.
PixelBytes, it's very easy to be swayed when we are subjective. What I am looking for is objectivity. In order for this to be objective, we need someone who is exclusive to give us their side of the story. Failing that, regardless of whether you have a large or small portfolio, that's really a matter of opinion. What I like to see now at this stage is both sides of the coin. Not yours, not mine, but two objective evidence without historical accidents or incidence that have formed our subjective leanings.
419
« on: July 27, 2009, 17:49 »
If the possibility of IS making changes that could affect you is your main concern, you should do a little analysis on your IS portfolio.
I've seen some portfolios where a large proportion of sales seem to be dependent on just a few very popular images - if that's the case for you, be aware that all it takes is a slight change in the best match, or even just somebody else uploading something similar, to cause one or more of them to suddenly die on you.
While specialising does have its advantages, a larger and broader portfolio can often weather the ebbs and flows of iStock changes without the same sudden shocks... just something to bear in mind.
Your thinking makes a lot of sense to me. In your shoes I might consider exclusivity too.
But if you are wondering if istock will change look at the recent past. They are always changing something.
"If it ain't broke don't fix it" is definitely not the policy at istock. Neither is K.I.S.S.
In response to both above comments, to be fair to Istock, such incidents are not just the premise of Istock. Lately, if you're with Dreamstime, you know the same thing happened recently with newly approved images. Only that when it's Istock, there is usually more noise (no pun intended) made on this forum
420
« on: July 27, 2009, 17:40 »
I am not exclusive with IStock, but everytime someone ponders about worrying being exclusive with IStock, I keep asking the same questions:
1)Why is there still some people going exclusive eg. latest being ichiro.
2) I haven't heard that Sean has left exclusivity with IStock.
These two resounding questions make me think there is really more than meets the eye on being exclusive with IStock . Surely it all depends highly on your images.
If my images are doing well with IStock consistently, I would think there is very little to worry about quitting exclusivity, no matter how erratic and volatile IStock's mentality is.
My tuppenny's thoughts. As always !
421
« on: July 27, 2009, 17:26 »
I think that DT keeps your files able for reactivation for three moths. After that you have to upload them again.
Be aware that many of your pictures will not be approved again. Inspectors criteria changes by the time.
Are you sure about that? I've reactivated files that were disabled for more than 3 months without a problem. The only condition I know is that the time you have to keep with DT re starts all over as Day 1 from the day you re activate your disabled files.
422
« on: July 27, 2009, 16:27 »
Well, I have been anxiously awaiting Veer going live...it looked like it was going to be a good place to be selling photos, for several reasons.
I finally got my first 10 approved and have been submitting more.
I am so disappointed now (again). I have as many rejected as approved. As I scanned through the rejection reasons, composition was one reason. Two photos were rejected because "The subject matter is outside of Veer Marketplace's current needs" and yet one of them I already submitted and it was approved. This second one is the same subject, just a whole different view of the object. The second one is the same subject as the first one submitted and approved, the first was in vertical format and the second in horizontal format. Same rejection reason "The subject matter is outside of Veer Marketplace's current needs".
I give up for now. I just don't think I'm good enough. 
No, you should never think that way. Especially with Veer this being so new. Just keep submitting and try to grasp the kind of shots Veer likes of your portfolio. We all have our own site that "thinks we are not good enough", whether it's SS, IS, FT, or whatnot. You know from your own experience with the Big 6 , one should never deem rejections from one as an indication of "truth" written in stone. Keep going cclapper
423
« on: July 27, 2009, 16:10 »
I never almost ever use a tripod when shooting dynamic subjects. Then again, I think there is a place for tripod usage even there.
We tend to shoot on the fly and we are so used to using shutter speed and high ISO to "cheat" for us. Assuming that it will bring us that sharp image.
I look back to the days I was shooting 4 by 5 and 8 by 10, where the tripod is essential. I shoot less, and my useful images were far higher in count.
Maybe there is something there to consider. The tripod "slows us down" where we contemplate more and thus, create that one shot that matters, rather than blast away on our motor drive / continuous xxx fps.
Brings us back to the day of watching the war movies. The privates shoot away with their machine gun hitting everything but missing the enemy , and the sargeant takes one shot with his rifle and drops the enemy. Marksmanship vs speed. Like football (soccer to you), the dribbler never ever gets the goal; the crackshot does.
424
« on: July 27, 2009, 15:44 »
I do the same thing - downplay what I make in stock photography to people. I don't feel like a pathetic wannabe though.
I emphasize the low per sale price on purpose for two reasons - to prospective photographers it convinces them it isn't worth bothering to submit, and to prospective models it explains why I "can't afford" to pay them (of course I pay the ones who are repeat models and actually make me money, but not first timers no matter who they are).
Last thing I want anyone knowing is that there is real money to be made in this racket.
I will still happily take the total of my monthly micro earnings over the sporadic $400 sale any day.
But that's just it, isn't it? We assume that the gallery sales is sporadic, as we know the attraction of stable earning from micro. Could also be the same with the gallery photographer trying to discourage prospective gallery photographers by telling "wannabees" that the earnings on selling gallery prints is in fact "sporadic". PixelBytes, go for it.
I don't know any other stock photographers I could discourage, or any good-looking young people I could mislead. So to me, 30 cents is still just 30 cents. Whoops it just went to 25 cents.
Yes, that's just it ! The more we convince ourselves that there is no other way to make money, the happier the stock sites are going to be. They know not too many of us will actually take the chance to leave . So the commissions get lower and lower every single day. It's much like the indian story of the little elephant, you know? How it was tied to a chain when it was tiny . It was conditioned to believe it won't be set free. By the time this tiny elephant becomes a giant adult, the chain is replaced by a rope . This giant still believes it cannot be free and the indigenous owner has the elephant to use at his own expense all day long pulling logs . The elephant is satisfied and grateful to the master for a few feeds of bananas. Sounds familiar? Doesn't it?
425
« on: July 27, 2009, 10:56 »
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 28
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
