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 - Travelling-light
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21
401
« on: February 27, 2013, 19:52 »
It could be that they are the only ones they want to keep. I wouldn't be surprised if those contributors hardly need to be inspected, so smaller players are probably more expensive for them. If smaller contributors are driven out they can reduce their numbers of inspectors and save more money. In the end, it could be that only the factories will find micro worthwhile, and the rest of us will have to find a new home. Where's KonaHawaii? 
Oh come on __ do the numbers. Yuri, MB and all the 'factories' have barely 200K images between them. They don't even represent 1% of the library.
What per centage of sales do they represent?
Nothing like enough to be as influential as you seem to believe. "They're the only ones they want to keep" __ yeah, right! As Getty have just demonstrated with Sean, they can dispense with even the biggest players without a thought. The agency's strength, and our weakness, is precisely because we are so numerous and none of us is particularly important to them in the greater scheme of things. [/quote] Sure, but some are less unimportant than others, hence the difference in pay. The difference to me, is that I'll leave BS. You of course, with the bridge, have got the SS version of the golden handcuffs. I doubt IS got rid of Sean without a thought.
402
« on: February 25, 2013, 21:07 »
In the meantime, though, I'd love a little help listing some good but inexpensive hosts especially for newbies. Also if anyone wants to help people set up, they should mention it.
As people list good hosting solutions we can add them to the original post.
For anyone in Australia/New Zealand/South Pacific I would highly recommend AussieHQ at http://www.aussiehq.com.au/web_and_email_hostingWe've been with them since 2003 (originally AussieHosts), and service has been excellent. AU$15/month gets you a single domain, 10GB storage and unlimited traffic. ETA I'm willing to help with setup - I've several years tweaking Wordpress sites
403
« on: February 22, 2013, 13:41 »
From my perspective, all hope for long term good things for contributors from SS ended when they sent out the e-mail about Bigstock subscriptions and the ridiculous levels of annual sales needed to get the top level of royalties.
I think it's only a matter of when, not if, that royalty schedule is applied to sales at SS. That sort of scheme cuts SS's costs (which increases their profit) and favors the factory producers - Yuri, Monkey Business Images, etc.
There is no way, even if SS doubled their business and I stepped up production significantly (I do this part time), I would keep my 38 cents per sub download and more importantly the higher payouts on OD and Single image sales.
So I'm glad they had a good fourth quarter, but it no longer seems to have anything to do with my prosperity there.
It could be that they are the only ones they want to keep. I wouldn't be surprised if those contributors hardly need to be inspected, so smaller players are probably more expensive for them. If smaller contributors are driven out they can reduce their numbers of inspectors and save more money. In the end, it could be that only the factories will find micro worthwhile, and the rest of us will have to find a new home. Where's KonaHawaii? 
Oh come on __ do the numbers. Yuri, MB and all the 'factories' have barely 200K images between them. They don't even represent 1% of the library.
What per centage of sales do they represent?
404
« on: February 22, 2013, 10:55 »
From my perspective, all hope for long term good things for contributors from SS ended when they sent out the e-mail about Bigstock subscriptions and the ridiculous levels of annual sales needed to get the top level of royalties.
I think it's only a matter of when, not if, that royalty schedule is applied to sales at SS. That sort of scheme cuts SS's costs (which increases their profit) and favors the factory producers - Yuri, Monkey Business Images, etc.
There is no way, even if SS doubled their business and I stepped up production significantly (I do this part time), I would keep my 38 cents per sub download and more importantly the higher payouts on OD and Single image sales.
So I'm glad they had a good fourth quarter, but it no longer seems to have anything to do with my prosperity there.
It could be that they are the only ones they want to keep. I wouldn't be surprised if those contributors hardly need to be inspected, so smaller players are probably more expensive for them. If smaller contributors are driven out they can reduce their numbers of inspectors and save more money. In the end, it could be that only the factories will find micro worthwhile, and the rest of us will have to find a new home. Where's KonaHawaii?
405
« on: February 20, 2013, 20:54 »
I think everyone who is accepted get to invite up to 5 other people, this people need to pass inspection/curation before they get accepted. They are NOT looking for regular stock photos. they are looking for "Vetta" and "Agency" type only, more or less. Artsy photos also work.
If that is the case then Stocksy will be ruling out 95%+ of contributors and/or their portfolios (and most probably same percentage of potential buyers too). It certainly has little or no chance of making a significant contribution to current microstock earnings with that plan. Most of the money spent on stock imagery is via simple images that illustrate their subject well rather than fancy 'photographic masterpieces'. There is a market for such stuff, especially at premium prices __ it's just a relatively small one.
Gostwyck, you are so wrong.
406
« on: February 20, 2013, 19:36 »
I think everyone who is accepted get to invite up to 5 other people, this people need to pass inspection/curation before they get accepted. They are NOT looking for regular stock photos. they are looking for "Vetta" and "Agency" type only, more or less. Artsy photos also work.
The great thing about that is it will give people who are not exclusive with IS somewhere to put those images. Sounds like a great opportunity
407
« on: February 20, 2013, 14:19 »
97 over 5 months. To be fair, that's starting from nil online at the beginning to about 1100 now. I've just checked, and we actually made slightly more on our own website last year than we did at BS, and this year our own website is way ahead. It looks as though we will also beat DT this month
408
« on: February 16, 2013, 14:47 »
I've seen the argument a lot about not wanting to undercut SS with lower paying sub sites, but how much money are we actually talking about?
If you sell at the vaunted top level at BigStock, 50K a year, you'd make $19K a year at $.38. That same number of sales at $.25 is $12500. So, it is a difference of $6500 a year or a little over $500 a month. It's a nice chunk of change that all of us would definitely like, but it's not necessarily life changing.
Of course, most of us don't have 50K sub sales a year. If you sell 2000 images a month, it's $260 a month. 1000 images, it's half that at $130 a month. And so on.
That's not really a huge difference unless you have huge sales volumes, so why a quibbling over pennies (literally)? It seems like attacking the small, extra small and web sizes would be a much more profitable complaint area. These sizes are really undercutting your profits.
You're right, it doesn't make much difference. The thing is, we just received the renewal notice for our house and contents insurance. We have to pay an extra $19 per month. That isn't much money either, but where is it going to come from? Will our total earnings increase by $19 per month to cover it? Or will BS attract buyers from other sites who currently pay more? Scott says the subscription plan is aimed at BS buyers. Are they the ones who currently result in a payment to us of a minimum 50 cents? Maybe I'm missing something fundamental, but for years I've wondered this:- Big corporations have to constantly increase their profits to satisfy their shareholders. They all want to drag more money out of us. If we have less money, we can't spend it. How are we supposed to buy their products if we haven't got any money?
409
« on: February 15, 2013, 19:26 »
The Bigstock team has two goals. The first is to continue to grow the business by providing customer-friendly purchase options. The second -- the goal for the new royalty model -- is to stay competitive and fair while avoiding royalty adjustments in the future. This product is targeted at Bigstock customers and this is the first time subscriptions will appear on the Bigstock site. The team is going to be monitoring how customers respond to subscriptions and they'll be sensitive to contributor earnings at the same time.
Hello Scott, For the life of me I cannot understand why you didn't turn Bigstock into something innovative, for example a site with premium images (like iStock's Vetta collection). Instead you chose to play only in the lower-end segment of the market, compete with yourselves for the same type of customers, set up a hamster wheel for contributors, etc. Boring! To my mind Bigstock is a weird site, I don't think it offers anything significant that Shutterstock doesn't, it is just some kind of (distorting) mirror. I don't think anybody would have a problem if it suddenly ceased to exist, that's why if I were in your shoes I would try to turn BS into something completely different from SS and attract a different kind of customers.
If you do a similar thing with royalties on SS I will quit microstock or if the stocksy site goes online and accepts me I will move my images there (they would be exclusive). At the moment I must say I am disappointed with Shutterstock. It seems like you have run out of creative ideas. Setting up a hamster wheel for contributors is not innovative at all. Istock was the first to come up with this and look where it got them.
I agree. If BS had done something like this, I would have uploaded some of my better images. As it is, I will remove all my images. I hope this doesn't sound arrogant, but I'm confident I would make more money the premium way, than I would the cheap way.
410
« on: February 14, 2013, 21:54 »
So we just ignore the unrealistic RC levels with BigStock? I think they've made a big mistake and it makes me concerned about the future of SS.
I'm a little concerned that Oringer or some other representative of SS hasn't posted any statements in this forum to reassure us that no royalty cuts are in the works for SS. I mean if our fears are unfounded, why wouldn't they simply let us know right away and put all our worried paranoia to rest?
Agreed. Scott Braut usually appears when anything is being said that isn't correct. He hasn't done so on this occasion, which is a worry.
411
« on: February 14, 2013, 12:53 »
Vlad, I'm glad you didn't leave MSG. I read this forum to get different points of view, and a lot of what you say is useful. Please continue, I don't usually bother to reply when all I want to say is +1, but I'm sure others feel the same. I just wish people wouldn't attack others for having a different point of view. Those people doing the attacking also have useful things to say, and I want them to continue posting also, the useful stuff that is, not the attacks. No need for anyone to go off in a huff.
412
« on: February 14, 2013, 12:17 »
I love their hair at the end of the shoot:) But yeah, shooting with kit lens in low light will result in lots of "out of focus" rejections, and rightfully so. The thing is, they don't need stock quality - even it the image gets printed in a cookbook/magazine or gets shown on TV screen, the dimensions are not that big, so you can size down from your 18 MP or whatever and it will still look great. So many people don't realize the pain that stock photographers have to go though to get perfect sharpness and low noise levels at 100% resolution for huge files.
You are so absolutely right! Those rejections made stock photographers the shooters with the best eye for detail in photoshop. I often catch myself removing little logos, making the backgrounds perfectly black or white, or do other typically "stock stuff" for baby shoot clients!
And certainly in my experience, food never sell in large sizes. Except as subs
413
« on: February 12, 2013, 16:17 »
I've been banned two years ago and this guy Lobo sounds like he definitely worked too long in that place, he should better breath some fresh hair and he's clearly unfit for public relations, i've never seen such unpolite and offensive answers from a forum moderator in my life, if these are the standards at Getty it says it all about what kind of company it is, his unprofessionality is simply shocking, he would be fired on the spot in any other decent company, guess he's got his ass well covered ?
Somebody should assemble a list of his wrongdoings and write to istock's CEO in order to get gim booted out.
Seriously, he must have banned even dozens of buyers as well, imagine how much money istock lost because of this psycho.
Apparently he's been there 11 years. Many people have left or been booted out of IS in that time, and he is still there. Therefore, he is giving them what they want.
414
« on: February 12, 2013, 15:22 »
You've completely missed my point.
Is your point not that some files should attract a higher price because they are somehow better or because they would generally not be mainstream MS subjects and, thus, sell less often?
Maybe both? or either? As I said, the trick is to work out which is which. I know when Vetta was first introduced I didn't choose any myself because I didn't think I had any good enough. IS made the choices to get the system started, and it seemed to work. I was surprised how much money they made, but that reduced significantly when they raised prices and reduced commissions. Apparently less people were willing to pay the higher prices for my files, so that told me what was the best price for those files, unfortunately we weren't given a choice in how much to charge. I've got a few ex Vettas on SS now and I can tell you for sure they don't make as much money. I've also got files on SS which were zero sellers on IS and yet have sold quite well on SS. It's just working out which is which 
Have you posted your conclusions or thoughts about dropping exclusivity anywhere?
No, just as I didn't when I went exclusive in 2008. I prefer to keep most of my thoughts to myself
415
« on: February 12, 2013, 14:43 »
You've completely missed my point.
Is your point not that some files should attract a higher price because they are somehow better or because they would generally not be mainstream MS subjects and, thus, sell less often?
Maybe both? or either? As I said, the trick is to work out which is which. I know when Vetta was first introduced I didn't choose any myself because I didn't think I had any good enough. IS made the choices to get the system started, and it seemed to work. I was surprised how much money they made, but that reduced significantly when they raised prices and reduced commissions. Apparently less people were willing to pay the higher prices for my files, so that told me what was the best price for those files, unfortunately we weren't given a choice in how much to charge. I've got a few ex Vettas on SS now and I can tell you for sure they don't make as much money. I've also got files on SS which were zero sellers on IS and yet have sold quite well on SS. It's just working out which is which
416
« on: February 12, 2013, 12:41 »
Gostwyck, what you are missing is that not all files are equal. Yes, some files will sell many times over and make more money as microstock/subs. Others will sell much less often but can command a higher price. The trick is to work out which is which. I know IS didn't always get it right with Vetta/Agency, but they had the right idea. It was very worthwhile to have those V/A files, especially in the early days when they seemed to have the pricing right. As I seem to keep on saying, it's a pity they wrecked it.
We are not selling art (when it's sold, it's sold), we're are selling the right to use a copy for a specified purpose and can do it over and over again - like cd's / music downloads, cinema tickets, books, videos etc and, like these other commodities, there may be inate difference in quality (whatever that means subjectively) but that is NOT reflected in the unit price.
You've completely missed my point.
417
« on: February 12, 2013, 12:40 »
Gostwyck, what you are missing is that not all files are equal. Yes, some files will sell many times over and make more money as microstock/subs. Others will sell much less often but can command a higher price. The trick is to work out which is which. I know IS didn't always get it right with Vetta/Agency, but they had the right idea. It was very worthwhile to have those V/A files, especially in the early days when they seemed to have the pricing right. As I seem to keep on saying, it's a pity they wrecked it.
No, I'm not missing that. I just don't think that it really applies to Sean's port. In your case yes, in that you have wonderful landscapes that can take a ridiculous amount of patience and time to capture (not to mention the travel costs) and cannot be easily copied. Those sort of images, especially if they are likely to be low in demand, do deserve a premium. When you were exclusive it was perfectly obvious why certain of your images had been selected for Vetta.
Sean doesn't do that sort of stuff at all. When I look at his port, without the Vetta or Agency indicators, I wouldn't be able to guess which images were priced 5-6x more than others or why. That's one of the cock-ups that IS made. If you're going to charge 5-6x more for one product over another then it should be obvious why that differential exists.
Not that this has anything to do with 'microstock' anyway. We've always had the option of selling images at other higher-priced outlets, including RM even if you were exclusive. It's never been mandatory to determine all images 'equal' and send your entire port to microstock. Sean has been selling RM at Alamy for years for example.
And yet I feel certain that Sean has made a lot more money from his V/A files, than we have from our landscapes. And yes, you can put your files on other agencies, and we do, but the micros have the traffic. IS almost had it right, but they wrecked it.
418
« on: February 12, 2013, 10:56 »
Probably true, and Sean does have a family to feed. OTOH, it will be difficult to get buyers to pay a fair price if you're selling the same images for a pittance on the sub sites. I guess splitting the images could make some sense, maybe putting the more generic shots onto some other sites.
But I have every confidence that Sean has more business sense in his pinky toe than I have in what passes for a brain.
You still don't understand the concept of 'microstock'? It's a low-price/highvolume thing. That's how it works.
As an independent contributor, SS generates about 50% of my monthly microstock income (with BigStock adding another 3-4%). Without the 30% or so that IS and the PP (combined) currently generates, presumeably the situation that Sean will find himself in, then SS's contribution would actually be 75%. That's how important SS will probably be to Sean's income until another player like Stocksy makes an impact. That's also why Yuri, Andres, MB, etc are all 'selling their images for a pittance on the sub sites'. Because it works.
I'm hoping that someone at Getty will have enough sense to get around the table with Sean over the remaining 25 days, discuss it properly, and resolve the issue to the benefit of both parties. What has happened is madness.
Gostwyck, what you are missing is that not all files are equal. Yes, some files will sell many times over and make more money as microstock/subs. Others will sell much less often but can command a higher price. The trick is to work out which is which. I know IS didn't always get it right with Vetta/Agency, but they had the right idea. It was very worthwhile to have those V/A files, especially in the early days when they seemed to have the pricing right. As I seem to keep on saying, it's a pity they wrecked it.
419
« on: February 11, 2013, 14:20 »
Crikey. I can't think of anything to say that hasn't been said, but yes, everything that everyone else is saying, just wanted to add my two cents.
420
« on: February 11, 2013, 13:51 »
And FWIW, I've just deactivated another 15 20 and will do more later when we get back from Les Mis. Reason: "iStock idiocy. No faith in management."
Went to see that last week. I couldn't help but be reminded of all that's happening around here. I can't write anything that doesn't sound melodramatic, but you'll understand what I mean, I'm sure.
421
« on: February 10, 2013, 20:25 »
Race, do you know about BHZ? This is a way of checking if your rank is rising or falling. What you do is put BHZ in the highest ranking (essential) section of keywords on one of your files, then wait for the system to update. Then put BHZ in the search box. You will see over 2800 results, that's how many contributors are currently using the scheme. You then search through the results for your file, make a note of the position. Next time Alamy does a re-rank, check again, you will see if your rank has risen or fallen. You can't tell what your actual Alamy rank is, but this will give you an idea of whether or not your rank is rising or falling. As for the stats being useful, we have found that we get on average 1 sale for every 5 zooms, with a two month lag. From what I read in the Alamy forum, that is about average for everyone.
422
« on: February 10, 2013, 19:38 »
Basically what he is saying is that IS is aware of all the pain they are causing their own contributors but choose to do nothing about it.
Look what has come of the google deal revolt. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
If I ran a company and saw this much heartache I would make changes. But thats just me.
I'll bet you're not rich though, are you? 
No I am not, but you can make a lot of money whilst running a decent company.
The global company I work for now has called for 2013 to be the year to fix the top 15 pain points from a list they accumulated over the last two years, with customer and employee complaints. Money is no object, unlimited budget. And every time the top one pain point has been fixed, they add the next one to the bottom of the list, until the list is empty. That creates trust and motivation and the company is doing better then ever and everybody wants to hit their targets and then some. Its a great vibe to work in.
If only others could realise that! However, it's been discussed many times on the IS forum, and yet here we are.
423
« on: February 10, 2013, 19:04 »
Is there a reason that admins are allowed in this forum? Couldn't membership be controlled so that we don't have to worry about them butting in here too?
If you believe in freedom of speech, then they should be allowed to be here. And you have your opportunity to voice your opinion to them in neutral territory. Relish it, imo.
I inferred from Lobo's responses (and I certainly could be wrong) that if they want to can you they will. And whatever you post, they read. I almost felt like he was threatening us to some degree to watch what we say in here too.
Me too.
424
« on: February 10, 2013, 18:36 »
Basically what he is saying is that IS is aware of all the pain they are causing their own contributors but choose to do nothing about it.
Look what has come of the google deal revolt. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
If I ran a company and saw this much heartache I would make changes. But thats just me.
I'll bet you're not rich though, are you?
425
« on: February 10, 2013, 12:34 »
double post
That was a great post, I can relate to a lot of that. Where has it gone? ETA Put it back please
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|